" 


PURITANISM 

NOT 

GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM. 


BEIMG  A  REVIEW  OF 


"  THE    PURITANS    AND    THEIR    PRINCIPLES, 
BY  EDWIN  HALL." 

BT  THB 

REV.  A.  B.  CHAPIN,  M.  A, 


STANFORD   AND   SWORDS, 

139,  BROADWAY. 
1847. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1047,  by 

STANFORD  &  SWORDS, 

in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Southern  District  of  New-York. 


JOHN  R.  M'GowN,  Printer. 


" 


CONTENTS. 


Introductory  Letter       -        -        -'...-*     .'-.»  -          9 

Nature  and  importance  of  the  question         -  -         -17 

Misstatements  of  it         -         -         -         -        -  -         19 

Romish  view  of  the  Church  *    25 

of  tradition         ...        -  -         26 

Reformers'  view  of  the  Church            -         -  -         -26 

of  tradition 27 

Agreement  of  the  Reformers      -         -         -  -         -     28 

Romieh  view  of  Justification  -         -                  -  -         31 

Protestant  view        .......32 

its  foundation         -         -         -  -         33 

its  consequences         -  34 

Sense  of  Scripture,  how  determined  -        35 

Who  are  true  Protestants           -        -        -  -        -    36 

Puritanism  a  disease  of  Protestantism       -         -  -         37 

Summary  of  Puritan  Principles           -         -  -         -    38 

Deviations  of  Puritanism  from  the  Reformation  -        39 

(1)  Justification         -         -         -  -   '     -     39 

(2)  Interpretation  of  the  Bible        -  -        41 

(3)  Legislative  power  of  the  Church  -        -    42 
1* 


IV  CONTENTS. 

(4)  Authority  of  the  Church            -         -  43 

(5)  Nature  of  the  Church           -         -         -  44 

(6)  Nature  of  the  Ministry  47 

(7)  Nature  of  the  Sacraments    -         -         -  47 
(b)  Sin  of  Schism           ....  49 

Results  of       ...  50 

Our  agreement  with  the  Reformers  52 

(1)  Interpretation  of  Scripture    -         •         -  53 

(2)  Private  judgment     -  53 

(3)  Church  authoiity          -          -                   -  54 

(4)  The  Church  the  medium  of  graco       -  54 

(5)  Baptismal  Regeneration        -         -         -  54 

(6)  The  Real  Presence  -                              -  55 

(7)  Authority  of  General  Councils       -         -  57 

(8)  Household  Baptisms          ...  57 

(9)  Representative  character  of  the  Ministry  59 

(10)  Absolution  ....          .58 

(11)  Justification 60 

Ground  of  its  necessity         -         -  61 

Puritanism  cannot  understand  the  Reformers  61 

The  reason  why          -         -         -         -  62 

Why  the  Reformers  said  no  more  of  the  Church       -  63 

Divine  institution  of  the  Ministry  in  three  orders  -         -  64 

The  Ordinal     -         ....  65 

Apostolic  Succession          ......  65 

What  must  be  shown  to  prove  that  Churchmen  have 

departed  from  principles  of  the  Reformation        -  67 

Mr.  Hall's  Proof.  (1)  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  man  68 

(2)  A  paper  forming  a  part  of  third  book  68 

(3)  The  erudition  of  a  Christian  man  60 

(4)  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum        -         -  69 
His  Puritan  education  69 
His  account  of  its  design     -         -  70 
His  maturer  judgment  71 


Mr.  Hall's  misrepresentation  of  him  7 1 

Stillingfleet's  own  mistakes       I  -  73 

A  mistake  of  Burnett  74 

Points  of  agreement  with  the  Reformers      -         -         -  75 

Disagreement  of  Continental  Reformers            -         -  76 

Lutheran  rites  and  ceremonies            -         •'*     ".         -  78 

Objections  to  the  English  Reformation  (note)    -    ..   • 

The  work  of  the  State      -         -         -         -  77 

Gradual  in  its  character  80 

Development  of  Ritual     -         -         -         -  81 

Its  canonical  character           -         -         -  85 

Puritanism  has  changed,  not  we         -         -         -         -  86 

Boasts  of  having  changed  87 

Mr.  Hall's  view  of  Antiquity.  (1)  Irenffius           -         -  90 

(2)  Clement  of  Rome     ....  92 

(3)  Justin  Martyr,  Polycarp  and  Ignatius    -  95 

(4)  Clement  of  Alexandria      -         -         -  97 

(5)  Jewel  and  Stillingfleet           -                  -  99 
Mr.  Hall's  views  of  Scripture.     (1)  Schism  99 

(2)  The  incestuous  Corinthian     -  101 

(3)  Our  Lord'irianguage  at  the  last  Supper  101 

(4)  Ordination  of  Timothy    -.       -         -  103 

(5)  Andronichus  and  Junia       -         -         -  103 

(6)  Ordination  of  Titus          -         -         -  104 
Points  of  difference  between  us.     (1)  The  Church      -  107 

(2)  Baptismal  Regeneration       '    -         -  108 

(3)  The  Real  Presence     -        -        -/      -  109 

(4)  The  Ministry          -        -        -    ;    -  110 

(5)  Absolution          ....        •"        -  111 

(6)  Apostolical  Succession     -         -         -  111 
Mr.  Hall's  account  of  the  Church  and  her  theologians  113 
The  sincerity  of  it  -         -         -         -         -         -         -114 

The  fancied  result        -         -         -         -         -         -  116 

General  character  of  the  work          ....  n.7 


History  of  Puritanism  ;  Toleration  of  Churchmen    -  119 

Exemplified  at  Stratford     •  120 

at  FairfieW  ;  law  of  1727  123 

Practice  under  that  law :    (1)  Greenwich         -  12.r) 

(2)  Simsbury       -         -    '     -         -         -  125 

(3)  Waterbury 125 

(4)  Reading 127 

(5)  Churchmen  exempt  from  public  acts    -  127 
(G)  Not  allowed  to  tax  themselves           -  127 

Taxation  without  representation        -         -         -  128 

Political  tendencies -  129 

Religious  establishments  in  the  Colonies     -          -  129 

Change  in  Connecticut         -         -         -         -         -  132 

Episcopalians  and  the  Government  -         -         -  133 

Toleration  and  new  Constitution    -         -         -         -  135 

Connecticut  "  Blue  laws" 137 

"  Tables  tunied  " 141 

Puritan  kindness 142 

Episcopacy  in  New- York     -         -         -         -  143 

Gregson  Glebe 145 

% 

APPENDIX. 

Sympathy  of  the  Reformers  ....  151 

English  Reformation  and  Melanchthon      -         -         -  152 

Formula  of  Concord     -         -         -         -         -         .  153 

Episcopacy  in  Germany  -         -         -         -         -  154 

Hermann's  Plan  of  Reformation    -         -         -         -  155 

Sympathy  of  Reformers  -         -         -         .         .         -  156 

Lutheranism  and  the  Reformation          -         -         -  156 

School  of  the  PietisU 157 

of  Ernest i  and  Semler        -         -         -         -  158 

of  Rationalism       ......  159 

of  the  Supernaturalists        -         -         .         -  160 

New  Lutheran  -        -        .        .        -  160 


CONTENTS.  VU 

Neander's  defects  as  a  Church  historian     •     -     ~  '•  163 

New  Lutheran  view  of  the  Sacraments     -         -         -  168 

Baptism.     Rev.  Dr.  Hengsteiiberg         •   -t  '  168 

Christianity  Sacramental    -         -         -         -169 

One  Sacrament  in  two  parts          -         -         -         -  170 

Difference  of  the  two          »     •  ;>-       -    >    -  171 

Rev.  Dr.  Martensen 171 

(1)  Baptism  in  an  organic  body          -         -  172 

(2)  Essentially  infant  Baptism       -         -  174 

(3)  Sacramental  Predestination          -         -  175 

(4)  Sacrament  of  Regeneration      -         -  177 

(5)  Sacrament  of  Faith     -  179 
Papers  which  passed  between  Charles  I.  and  Rev.  Al- 
exander Henderson 183 


ERRATA. 

Page  109,  line  12,  for  "  shall  see,"  read  Have  seen. 
«•    121,    "      8,  for  "  1780,"  read  1708. 


INTRODUCTORY  LETTER. 


To  the  Rev.  Wm.  Cooper  Mead,  D.  D. 
REVEREND  AND  DEAR  SIE  : 

In  presenting  the  following  Review  to  the  public,  it 
is  my  duty  and  desire  to  acknowledge,  that,  should  it 
be  of  any  service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  no  small  share 
of  the  thanks  will  be  due  to  yourself, — for  calling  my 
attention  to  the  subject, — for  aiding  me  with  many 
valuable  suggestions, — and  for  securing  it  a  ready 
entrance  upon  the  literary  world.  This  statement 
is  made,  not  with  the  wish  or  intention  of  avoiding 
any  responsibilities  which  the  course  of  argument 
here  pursued  devolves  upon  the  author.  For  the 
positions,  facts,  and  logic  of  the  Review,  the  author 
is  alone  answerable.  But  since  it  was  owing  to 
your  partial  kindness,  that  I  was  led  to  undertake 
this  subject,  it  is  my  desire  to  state  briefly  some  con- 
siderations  that  led  me  to  the  course  of  argument 
here  adopted. 

But  first,  it  should  be  observed,  that  I  do  not 
2 


10  INTRODUCTORY   LETTER. 

propose  to  write  an  answer  to  The  Puritans  and 
their  Principles,  hut  only  a  review  of  those  facts 
which  bear  upon  what  the  author  of  that  work  cvi- 
dently  regards  as  its  leading  and  most  important  fea- 
ture, the'  Protestant  character  of  Puritanism.  In 
doing  this,  it  has  been  necessary  to  make  a  prelim- 
inary inquiry, — to  ask,  What  /.?  Protestantism  ?  not 
as  understood  by  the  ten  thousand  sectaries,  who 
cloak  themselves  under  its  mantle,  but  as  under- 
stood by  the  Reformers  themselves.  The  necessity 
of  this  inquiry  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to 
our  author,  and  he  has  been  content  to  adopt 
certain  vague  and  popular  notions  in  regard  to  it, 
which  are  floating  up  and  down  in  his  own  denom- 
ination, without  making  any  effort  to  ascertain  their 
truth  or  accuracy.  Indeed,  he  does  not  seem  to  be 
aware  of  the  diversity  which  exists  between  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation  and  the  principles  of 
Puritanism.  The  first  object  of  the  following  pages 
has  been,  therefore,  to  ascertain  from  unobjectiona- 
ble sources,  what  are  the  true  principles  of  Protest- 
antism, as  they  were  held  by  the  Reformers.  The 
next  step  is  to  try  Puritanism  by  that  standard  ;  and 
finally,  to  see  how  far  our  authors  objections  against 
the  character  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  as  anti-Pro- 
testant, are  sustained  by  the  facts. 

The  propriety,  if  not  the  necessity  cf  this  course, 
will  be  apparent  from  a  brief  history  of  the  Episco- 
paj  controversy  in  this  country.  When  that  contro- 


INTRODUCTORY  LETTER.  11 

versy  commenced,  the  Congregationalists  of  New- 
England  called  themselves  Presbyterians,  and 
insisted  that  the  Presbyterian  form  of  the  ministry 
was  an  original  divine  institution,  of  perpetual  and 
binding  obligation,  and  from  which  it  was  schism  to 
separate.  The  first  publication  in  this  country, 
which  called  that  fact  in  question,  so  far  as  we 
know,  was  by  a  layman  of  Boston,  (1723,)  for  which 
he  was  indicted  as  a  libel  on  the  government.  From 
this  time  the  Episcopal  controversy  was  carried  on 
with  great  vigor  for  near  twenty  years,  (1723—1739,) 
by  DICKINSON,  FOXCROFT,  GRAHAM,  and  WIGGLES- 
WORTH,  on  the  Presbyterian  side  ;  and  by  JOHNSON 
and  BEACH,  on  the  Episcopal  side  ;  and  the  evidence 
to  be  derived  from  Scripture,  Antiquity,  and  the 
Reformation,  was  pretty  thoroughly  scanned.  The 
doctrine  of  Apostolical  succession,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  was  not  debated,  as  both  parties  held  it, 
one  deriving  it  through  the  line  of  Bishops,  the 
other  through  that  of  Presbyters. 

The  effect  of  these  discussions  not  arresting,  as 
was  hoped,  the  progress  of  the  Church,  but  evidently 
accelerating  it,  the  assailants  left  the  worship  and 
discipline,  and  turned  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 
A  ten  years  controversy  (1739 — 1749)  followed 
touching  election,  predestination,  universal  redemp- 
tion,baptismal  regeneration,  and  other  kindred  doc. 
trines,  of  which  DICKINSON  was  the  principal  cham- 
pion of  the  Calvinistic  opinions,  and  to  which  were 


12  INTRODUCTORY  LETTER. 

opposed  JOHNSON,  BEACH,  and  WETMORE.  This  dis- 
cussion, like  the  preceding,  adding  numbers  and 
strength  to  Episcopacy,  was  abandoned,  and  the  old 
ground  of  the  divine  right  of  Presbyterianism  re-as- 
serted. 

During  the  next  twenty  years,  (1749 — 1768,) 
the  constitution,  worship  and  discipline  of  the  Church 
were  very  thoroughly  examined  by  HOBART, 
CHAUNCEY  and  WELLS,  on  the  Presbyterian  side,  and 
JOHNSON,  BEACH,  WETMOHE,  CANER,  and  LEAM- 
ING  on  the  Episcopal  si:le.  A  collateral  discussion 
was  also  carried  on,  touching  the  right  of  the* 
Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts, 
to  send  Episcopal  missionaries  into  places  where 
there  were  Presbyterian  ministers,  by  HOBAHT  and 
MAYIIEW,  against  JOHNSON  and  APTHORP.  Every 
one  of  these  discussions  increased  the  numbers,  and 
strengthened  the  hands  of  the  Episcopal  Church  ; 
until  there  was  some  prospect  of  obtaining  what 
they  had  long  desired,  a  Bishop  to  reside  among 
them. 

A  new  element  of  debate  was  now  brought  out 
— the  right  of  the  English  Church  to  send  a  Bishop 
to  this  country,  and  the  propriety  of  doing  so,  in- 
volving of  course  the  whole  theory  of  the  Church  ; 
and  the  subject  was  thoroughly  canvassed  by 
CHAUNCEY  and  CHANDLER,  (1768-1774)  over  their 
own  names,  and  by  a  host  of  anonymous  scribblers, 
in  the  periodicals  of  the  day.  In  the  meantime,  the 


INTRODUCTORY  LETTER.  13 

Presbyterian  ministers,  not  satisfied  with  the  aspect 
of  things,  formed  a  "  Convention  of  Delegates,"  in 
1766,  for  the  alleged  purpose  of"  defending  the  cause 
of  religion  against  the  attacks  of  its  various  ene- 
mies ;  "  by  which  was  understood,  as  the  sequel 
shows,  the  design  of  opposing  Episcopacy.  Among 
the  most  active  men  of  this  body  were  Messrs. 
HOBART,  WELLS,  and  GOODRICH,  of  Connecticut, 
ROGERS  of  New- York,  etc.  This  Convention  spared 
no  pains  to  create  a  prejudice  against  the  Church, 
and  was  in  no  small  degree  instrumental  in  fomenting 
the  difficulties  between  the  colonies  and  the  mother 
country.  During  these  various  controversies,  the 
Church  and  her  ministers  were  assailed  by  every 
species  of  warfare,  by  book  and  pamphlet,  by  song 
and  satire,  by  ballad  and  poem,  by  men  in  their  own 
names,  without  any  names,  and  under  assumed 
names,  by  legal  process  and  by  illegal  process,  now 
upon  one  point,  and  now  upon  another,  until  the 
whole  field  of  controversy  had  been  carefully  survey- 
ed, and  Churchmen  became  thoroughly  informed  as 
to  the  distinctive  principles  of  the  Church. 

These  discussions  and  controversies  served  to 
confirm  the  Churchmen  of  the  northern  Colonies, 
(to  which  they  were  mostly  confined,)  in  their  at- 
tachment to  the  Church,  and  to  the  mother  country, 
so  that  when  the  Revolution  broke  out,  the  Episco- 
palians, when  they  took  an  active  part,  were  gener- 
ally found  attached  to  the  royal  cause.  For  this, 


14  INTRODUCTORY  LETTER. 

Churchmen  universally  suffered  every  species  of  in- 
dignity and  insult,  thousands  had  their  estates  con- 
fiscated, many  were  imprisoned,  and  some  suffered 
death  ;  to  escape  which,  others  abandoned  their 
country  and  their  possessions,  and  fled  to  the  British 
provinces.  The  close  of  the  Revolution,  therefore, 
found  the  Church  weak,  and  poor,  and  despised,  de- 
prived of  most  of  her  clergy,  and  many  of  her  laity, 
and  for  some  time  she  seems  to  have  ceased  to  bo 
an  object  of  jealousy  ;  and  an  occasional  essay  on 
the  subjects  so  sharply  debated  before,  from  SEA- 
BURY,  LEAMING  and  BOWDEN,  attracted  little  or  no 
attention.  , 

But  the  cause  which  rendered  Churchmen  so 
odious  in  the  Revolution,  was'  the  salvation  of  the 
Church.  That  love  and  devotion  to  it,  which  led 
them  to  submit  to  privation  and  degradation,  during 
the  Revolution,  preserved  it  in  its  completness  after 
its  close.  From  this  time,  (1785,)  a  period  of  twenty 
years  was  suffered  to  elapse  before  any  considerable 
assault  was  made  upon  the  doctrines  or  discipline  of 
the  Church.  A  controversy  was  then  (1805)  com- 
menced, as  was  generally  supposed,  by  concert 
among  a  great  body  of  anti-Churchmen,  which 
continued  for  several  years,  in  which  the  principal 
writers  on  the  Presbyterian  si:le,  were  LINN,  MASON, 
and  MILLER,  and  on  the  Episcopal,  WHITE,  HOBART, 
BEASLEY,  How  and  BOWDEN  ;  the  effect  of  which 
was  to  make  more  and  sounder  Churchmen. 


INTRODUCTORY  LETTER.  ]5 

The  controversy  in  New- York  coming  to  a 
close,  it  was  renewed  in  Connecticut,  about  1819, 
and  the  Church  was  exposed  for  several  years  to  a 
series  of  assaults,  which  have  been  occasionally 
renewed  from  that  time  to  the  present.  Most  of  the 
productions  have  been  anonymous,  and  very  few  of 
them  have  attempted  to  discuss  any  important  princi- 
ple, their  general  aim  having  been  to  excite  prejudice 
against  the  Church,  while  some  have  assumed  the 
false  character  of  Churchmen,  with  the  hope  of  be- 
traying  the  more  successfully. 

The  main  questions,  which  have  been  debated 
in  the  controversies  of  the  last  century,  have  related 
to  the  character  and  claims  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
as  sustained  by  Scripture,  antiquity,  and  the  opinions 
of  the  Reformers.  Churchmen  have  generally  been 
content  with  maintaining  their  own  cause,  without  car- 
rying the  warfare  into  the  enemy's  country.  But 
the  time  has  now  arrived,  when  the  cause  of  truth 
requires,  that  the  character  of  Puritanism  should  be 
investigated,  that  Puritanism  itself  should  be  put  to 
the  proof  of  its  claims.  These,  so  far  as  they  de- 
pend upon  Scripture  and  antiquity,  have  been  inci- 
dentally considered  in  all  those  works  which  have 
been  written  in  defence  of  Episcopacy.  But  there 
is  another  point  which  all  Puritan  writers  assume, 
and  which  has  been  tacitly  conceded  by  its  oppo- 
nents, that  requires  to  be  investigated  anew, — the 
true  Protestant  character  of  modern  Puritanism; 


16  INTRODUCTORY  LETTER. 

is  it  the  form  of  life  of  Protestantism,  or  rather 
one  of  its  diseases  ?  These  are  the  chief  points  of 
inquiry  in  this  Review.  The  other  topics  are  only 
incidental,  and  important  for  the  particular  purposes 
mentioned.  The  authorities  quoted  on  these  points, 
are  mostly  anti-Episcopal,  in  order  to  obviate  an 
objection  that  Puritan  writers  are  always  making 
against  Churchmen,  of  wanting  in  fairness  towards 
them.  We  trust  that  the  facts  and  arguments  here 
adduced  will  satisfy  the  candid  and  intelligent  of  all 
sects  and  parties,  of  a  most  certain  fact,  to  wit,  that 
modern  Puritanism  has  little  or  nothing  in  common 
icith  genuine  Protestantism ;  and  that  Puritan  ca- 
luminators  of  the  Church,  will  see  that  they  have 
something  to  do  to  sustain  their  own  character  and 
claims.  Trusting  that  this  discussion  may  tend  to 
advance  that  unity  which  should  prevail  in  the 
Church  of  CHRIST, 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  Rev.  and  dear  Sir,  your 
obedient  servant, 

A.  B.  CHAPIN. 
NEW-HAVEN,  Oct.  1,  1846. 


PURITANISM 


GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM. 


NATURE    AND    IMPORTANCE    OF   THE    QUESTION. 

"The  great  question  of  the  age,"  says  a  learned 
and  thoughtful  writer  of  the  German  Reformed 
Communion,  "  undoubtedly  is  that  concerning  the 
Church.  It  is  evidently  drawing  to  itself  all  minds 
of  the  more  earnest  order,  more  and  more,  in  all  parts 
of  the  world.  When  it  comes  to  be  apprehended  in 
its  true  character,  it  can  hardly  fail  to  be  of  absorb- 
ing interest ;  nor  is  it  possible,  perhaps,  for  one  who 
has  become  thus  interested  in  it,  to  dismiss  it  again 
from  his  thoughts.  Its  connections  are  found  to 
reach  in  the  end,  through  the  entire  range  of  the 
Christian  life.  Its  issues  are  of  the  most  momen- 
tous nature,  and  solemn  as  eternity  itself.  No  ques- 
2* 


18  PURITANISM 

lion  can  be  less  of  merely  curious  or  speculative  in- 
terest. It  is  in  some  respects,  just  now,  of  all  prac- 
tical questions,  the  most  practical.  In  these  circum- 
stances, it  calls  for  attention,  earnest,  and  prayerful, 
and  proiound."  * 

To  the  truth  of  this  representation,  the  history  of 
the  age  bears  abundant  testimony.  The  new  life  so 
recently  infused  into  the  Romish  Communion,  the 
discussions  going  on  in  the  Church  of  England  and 
America,  the  recent  birth  and  vigorous  life  of  the 
new  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theology,  as  well  as 
tli,;  turbulence  of  all  the  sects  and  parties  in  Chris- 
tendom, go  to  prove  that  the  question  of  the  Church 
and  of  our  relation  and  duty  to  it,  is  THE  great 
question  of  the  age.  That  great  issues  depend  upon 
the  proper  settlement  of  this  question,  no  one  at  all 
conversant  'with  the  history  of  the  world  and  the 
Church,  can  for  one  moment  doubt.  And  no  man, 
who  understands  and  appreciates  the  importance  of 
the  results  depending  thereupon,  can  approach  the 
subject  with  other  than  a  deep  feeling  of  responsi- 
bility, and  a  solemn  sense  of  the  consequences 
which  may  flow  from  the  manner  of  its  treatment. 

By  such,  no  word  will  be  lightly  or  inconsiderate- 
ly spoken.  No  argument  will  be  pressed  beyond 

•Rev.  John  W.  Nevin,  D.  D.,  Introd.  to  Dr.  Schhaf, 
on  the  "  Protestant  Principle,  as  related  to  the  present  state 
of  the  Church,"  p.  26. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  19 

the  limits  of  sound  logic — no  statement  ventured 
that  is  at  all  questionable.  Nothing  will  be  said  for 
mere  effect — nothing  done  which  truth  does  not  de- 
mand. Appeals  to  passion  and  prejudice  will  not  be 
permitted.  All  declamation  will  be  forborne,  and 
misrepresentation  most  carefully  avoided.  When, 
therefore,  we  find  one  employing  any  mere  ad  captan- 
dum  declamation  ;  any  palpable  sophistry,  any  plain 
misrepresentation  of  facts,  or  of  an  opponent's  po- 
sitions or  his  arguments  ;  any  appeals  to  passion^ 
prejudice,  or  ignorance ;  any  unscrupulous  asser- 
tions unsustained  by  proof;  but  above  all,  when  we 
find  one  resting  his  whole  case  on  mere  second-hand 
or  second-rate  authorities,  and  in  doubtful  points  quo- 
ting disputed  and  oft-refuted  works,  without  any  re- 
ference to  the  fact,  we  must  conclude,  either  that  he 
is  intellectually  deficient,  not  understanding  the  sub- 
ject, or  which  is  worse,  morally  deficient,  fighting 
for  victory,  not  for  truth ;  insensible  to  the  high  and 
holy  claims  of  the  subject  under  consideration. 

MISSTATEMENTS    OF   THE    QUESTION. 

Owing  to  some  or  all  of  these  causes  united,  the 
popular  mode  of  stating  the  question  has  been,  and 
still  is,  in  this  country,  to  a  great  extent,  monstrously 
false.  Thus  we  are  told  by  one  class,  that  the  great 
point  of  conflict  and  debate  is,  whether  we  shall 
have  a  religion  of  forms,  or  a  religion  of  the 


20  PURITAMSM 

spirit.*  Such  claim  to  be  the  friends  of  inward,  liv- 
ing, practical  piety,  and  often  charge  upon  others,  a 
secret  dislike  to  all  religion  of  the  heart  and  life, 
and  represent  them  as  wishing  to  exalt  the 
'letter  above  the  life,  to  substitute  the  sign  for 
the  substance.  But  this  issue  is  false.  The  condition 
of  humanity,  renovated  as  well  as  depraved,  is  not 
body  or  soul,  but  body  and  soul.  Religion  too,  in  its 
application  to  man,  must  have  body  as  well  as  soul, 
form  as  well  as  life ;  and  he  who  would  be  a  spirit- 
ualist only,  is  as  far  from  the  truth  as  the  most  thor- 
ough-going formalist.  The  question  relates  not  to  the 
existence  of  forms  in  religion,  but  to  their  nature  and 
extent.  It  is  not  whether  religion  shall  have  an 
outward  form  or  body,  but  what  that  form  and  body 
shall  be. 

So,  too,  we  are  told,  that  the  great  question  of  the 
day  is  whether  salvation  be  the  individual  concern  of 
every  sinner,  or  something  which  comes  to  him  only 
through  the  Church  ;  whether  it  is  the  result  of  a  pri- 
vate, separate  transaction  of  the  sinner  with  GOD'S 
WORD  and  SPIRIT,  or  whether  it  comes  to  him 
through  the  comprehensive,  but  inexplicable  minis- 
tration of  the  Church,  which  is  the  body  of  CHRIST, 
and  especially  in  and  through  the  Sacraments,  f 

•Nevin's  Introd.  11 — 13,  where  the  same  view  is  taken  of 
this  and  the  two  following1  statements  of  the  controversy. 

t  The  New-Englander,  I.  545 — 555,  has  urged  this 
charge  with  all  its  strength. 


NOT   GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  21 

This  issue  is  also  false.  Mere  Churchism,  which 
denies  all  individualism  is  an  error,  a  great  error. 
But  the  substitution  of  mere  individualism  in  its 
stead,  is  no  les?  an  error.  If  the  doctrine  of  spirit- 
ual individuality  be  so  held,  as  to  exclude  the  depen- 
dence of  the  individual  spiritual  life,  upon  the  gen- 
eral life  of  the  Church,  it  necessarily  becomes  one- 
sided and  false.  Individualism,  without  the  Church,  is 
as  little  to  be  trusted,  as  Churchism  without  individ- 
ual experience.  It  is  the  union  of  the  two  that  con- 
stitutes the  truth,  and  he  who  holds  one  side,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  other,  is  preparing  the  way  for  re- 
action in  favor  of  the  exclusive  predominance  of  the 
opposite  error. 

Again  it  is  said,  that  the  momentous  question 
with  which  Christendom  is  now  laboring,  is  be- 
tween the  liberty  of  private  judgment  and  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church.  This  statement,  too,  is  equal- 
ly false.  *  Nor  is  the  matter  mended  when  the  ques- 
tion is  represented  as  being  between  the  Bible  and 
the  Church.  In  the  language  of  the  author  already 
quoted:  "It  is  indeed  an  abominable  usurpation,  when 
the  Church  claims  to  be  the  source  of  truth  for  the 
single  Christian,  separately  from  the  Bible,  or  the 
absolutely  infallible  interpreter  of  the  sense  of  the 
Bible  itself;  and  so  requires  him  to  yield  his  judg- 

*  The  New  Englander,  II.  66 — 81,  in  a  miserably  false 
and  feeble  article,  represents  this  as  one  form  of  the  contro- 
versy. 


22  PURITANISM 

ment  blindly  to  her  authority  and  tradition.  But  it  is 
a  presumption  equally  abominable  for  a  single  indi- 
vidual to  cast  off  all  respect  for  Church  authority  and 
Church  life,  and  pretend  to  draw  his  faith  immedi- 
ately  from  the  Bible,  only  and  wholly  through  the 
narrow  pipe-stem  of  his  own  private  judgment.  No 
one  does  so  in  fact.  Our  most  bald,  abstract  sects, 
ever  show  themselves  here  as  much  under  authority 

almost,  as  the  papists  themselves Such  a 

thing  as  an  absolute,  abstract,  private  judgment,  we 
meet  with  in  no  denomination,  party  or  sect.  But  if 
we  had  it  what  would  it  be  worth  ?  For  at  last  what 
sort  of  comparison  can  there  be  between  the  naked 
judgment  of  a  single  individual,  and  the  general 
voice  of  the  Church?"* 

OUR  AUTHOR'S  VIEW. 

The  author  of  The  Puritans  and  their  Princi- 
ples, f  enters  fully  into  this  false  and  one-sided  view 
of  things,  bringing  up  and  urging  in  every  variety  of 
shape  against  his  opponents,  every  one  of  these  ab- 
surd and  erroneous  assumptions,  endeavoring  to 
sustain  them  by  every  species  of  false  argument  we 
have  noticed.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  with 
especial  reference  to  the  Episcopal  Church,  that  the 
battle  of  the  Reformation  is  once  more  to  be  fought 
with  those  who  once  gloried  in  the  style  of  Protes- 

*  Nevin's  Introd.  13. 

t  [Rev.]  Edwin  Hall,  [of  Norwalk,  Conn.] 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  23 

tant,  but  who  are  now  beginning  to  be  weary  of  the 
name.*  And  he  marches  forth,  the  boasted  cham- 
pion of  those  great  principles  which  he  supposes  to 
be  in  danger.  But  before  we  can  accept  his 
championship,  or  allow  his  charges,  we  must  be  as- 
sured of  two  things  ;  first,  that  he  knows  what  were 
the  points  at  issue  in  the  Reformation — what  was 
disputed  and  what  not;  second,  that  he  himself 
holds  every  one  of  the  doctrines  held  by  the  Refor- 
mers, as  they  held  them.  If  he  is  wanting  on  either 
point,  or  if,  as  we  suppose,  he  is  wanting  on  both,  if 
he  neither  knows  what  they  believed,  nor  believes  as 
they  did,  he  cannot  be  permitted  to  enter  the  lists 
in  their  defence,  nor  can  his  charges  against  others, 
of  having  departed  from  the  principles  of  the  Refor- 
mation, be  allowed  to  have  any  weight,  unless  sus- 
tained by  the  most  undoubted  proof. 

OUR  OWN  POSITION  COMPARED  WITH  THE  REFORMERS. 

Since  then,  there  is  so  much  ignorance,  and  er- 
ror, and  misrepresentation  in  the  very  statement  of 
the  question  at  issue,  by  the  author  of  The  Puritans 
and  their  Principles,  it  becomes  important  in  the 
first  instance  to  ascertain  the  true  nature  of  the  ques- 
tion to  be  considered,  in  order  that  we  may  deter- 
mine whether  in  his  zeal  against  those  he  supposes  to 
have  departed  from  the  principles  of  the  Reformation, 

*  p.  307. 


24  PURITANISM 

he  has  not  flown  in  the  face  of  the  Reformers  them- 
selves ;  and  also  lest  while  we  are  attempting  to  pull 
down  the  strong-holds  of  an  enemy,  we  be  ignorant- 
ly  ministering  to  his  strength.  That  the  questions  now 
at  issue,  are  the  same  as  those  which  called  the  Re- 
formation into  being,  that  we  are  called  upon  to  fight 
over  the  same  battles  which  Luther  and  Melancthon, 
which  Crammer  and  Ridley  and  Latimer  fought,  is 
so  often  and  so  loudly  reiterated  by  our  author  and  oth- 
ers, that  none  of  our  opponents  will  call  the  fact  in 
question.  But  though  many  of  the  points  at  issue  are 
the  same,  the  enemies  are  not  altogether  the  same. 
On  the  one  side,  it  is  true,  we  have,  as  the  Reformers 
had,  Romanism,  with  its  claim  to  an  authoritative 
infallible  Churchism,  swallowing  up  and  destroying 
the  proper  individuality  of  its  members  ;  but  on  the 
other  side  we  have  a  more  thorough-going  Sectar- 
ism  than  they  had,  with  its  claim  to  a  no  less  infal- 
lible individualism,  swallowing  up  and  destroying 
the  Church  altogether.  *  They  fought  with  their 
eye  chiefly,  oftentimes  only,  on  the  papal  mon- 
ster ;  we  are  obliged  look  out  for  the  dragon's 
teetk  that  are  continually  springing  up  around 
us.  While,  therefore,  the  language  of  the  Re- 
formers is  always  guarded  on  the  one  side,  it  is 
not  always  so  on  the  other  ;  and  he  who  over- 
looks or  forgets  this  fact,  as  our  author  does  at 

See  New  Englandiem,  41—42. 


NOT  GENUINE  PRbTESTANTILM.  25 

every  step,  will  never  be  able  to  do  them  justice,  as 
he  can  neither  enter  into,  nor  appreciate  their  feel- 
ings. In  order  to  understand,  therefore,  the  true  na- 
ture of  the  all  absorbing  questions  which  now  oc- 
cupy the  mind  of  the  Christian  world,  we  must  in- 
quire, briefly  as  possible,  what  is  the  Romish  idea  of 
the  Church,  and  of  our  relation  and  duty  to  it,  and 
what  was  the  idea  opposed  to  it  by  the  Reformers, 
and  the  consequences  resulting  therefrom  ;  and  what 
is  the  sectarian  idea  of  the  same,  which  stands  in 
the  opposite  extreme  from  Romanism  itself;  and  how 
that  view  agrees  with,  and  differs  from  the  view  of 
the  Reformers. 

ROMISH    VIEW    OF   THE    CHURCH. 

The  Romish  system  teaches  that  "the  visible 
Church  of  CHRIST  is  the  Son  of  GOD  himself,  ever- 
lastingly manifesting  Himself  among  men  in  a  hu- 
man form,  perpetually  renovated  and  eternally 
young,  the  permanent  Incarnation  of  the  same."* 
"  The  Church,"  therefore,  with  the  Romanist,  "  is 
the  body  of  the  LORD,  it  is,  in  its  universality,  His 
visible  form ;  His  permanent,  ever  renovated 
humanity ;  His  eternal  revelation."  f  Conse- 
quently, "  the  authority  of  the  Church,"  to  use  the 
language  of  one  of  its  ablest  modern  defenders,:}: 
"  is  the  medium  of  all  which  in  the  Christian  reli- 

*  Moehler  Symb.  333.    t  Moeh.  351.    t  Moeh.  340. 


26  PURITANISM 

gion  rcsteth  on  authority,  that  is  to  say,  the  Christian 
religion  itself,  so  that  CHRIST  himself  is  only  so  far 
an  authority,  as  the  Church  is  an  authority."  Out 
of  this  Church  it  holds  that  there  can  be  no  salva- 
tion.* 

ROMISH    VIEW    OF   TRADITION. 

This  view  of  the  Church  compelled  Romanism 
to  regard  the  Church  as  the  primary  source  of  all 
religious  knowledge,  the  foundation  upon  which 
even  the  Scriptures  themselves  must  rest  for  author- 
ity ;  and  tradition,  which  it  regards  as  the  living 
consciousness  of  the  Church,  must  be  independent 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  co-ordinate  with  them  in  au- 
thority, f 

REFORMERS'  VIEW  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  Reformers  could  not  accept  this  idea  of  the 
Church,  but  taught  to  use  the  language  of  a  living 
writer  of  the  German  Reformed,  that  "  the  visible 
Church  is  the  body  of  CHRIST,"  that  it  is  "  an  institu- 
tion founded  by  CHRIST,  proceeding  forth  from  his 
loins  and  animated  by  his  Spirit ;  through  which 
alone,  as  its  necessary  organ,  the  revelation  of  GOD  in 
CHRIST  becomes  effective  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  and  that  "  out  of  the  Church,  as  there  is  no 
Christianity,  there  can  be  no  salvation  ;"  that  "  as 
the  life  of  the  parent  flows  forward  in  the  child,  so 

•  Creed  Pope  Pius  IV.  t  Coun.  Trent  Sew.  IV 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  27 

the  Church  also  is  the  depository  and  continuation  of 
the  earthly  human  life  of  the  Redeemer,  in  his 
threefold  office,  of  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,"  and 
"  like  her  divine  founder,  has  a  divine  and  human, 
an  ideal  and  real,  a  heavenly  and  an  earthly  nature." 
In  regard  ta  "  single  Christians,  the  Church  is  the 
mother  from  which  they  derive  their  religious  life, 
and  to  which  they  owe,  therefore,  constant  fidelity, 
gratitude  and  obedience  ;"  and  that  "  only  in  such 
regular  and  rational  subordination,  can  the  individ- 
ual Christian  be  truly  free,  and  his  personal  piety 
can  as  little  come  to  perfection,  apart  from  the  in- 
ward and  outward  communion  with  the  life  of  the 
Church,  as  a  limb  separated  from  the  body,  or  a 
branch  torn  from  the  vine."* 

REFORMERS'  VIEW  OF  TRADITION. 

With  this  view  of  the  Church  they  could  do 
nothing  less  than  reject  the  Romish  notion  of  tradi- 
tion. But  they  were  far  from  rejecting  tradition  al- 

*  Schaf.  "  Theses  forthe  Time,"  §3,4,  6,  7, 11,  12.  This 
language  is  more  precise  and  formal  than  any  that  can  be 
found  in  the  writings  of  Luther,  or  generally,  in  those  of  Me- 
lanchthon,  and  yet  it  is  the  only  view  that  can  give  logical 
consistency  to  the  doctrines  which  Luther  taught ;  his  idea 
of  baptismal  regeneration,'  of  absolution,  of  the  real  presence, 
would  be  idle  phantoms  without  it.  But  though  the  phrase- 
ology is  not  that  of  Luther,  it  is  but  the  scientific  develop 
ment  of  what  he  actually  taught. 


28  PURITANISM. 

together,  as  many  seem  to  suppose.  The  thought 
of  substituting  their  own  private  whims  and  fancies, 
for  the  general  voice  of  the  Church,  never  entered 
their  minds.  With  them,  tradition  was,  to  use 
the  language  of  the  same  author,  "  not  a  part  of  the 
divine  word,  separate  from  that  which  is  written,  but 
the  contents  of  Holy  Writ  itself,  as  apprehended  and 
settled  by  the  Church  ;  not  an  independent  source 
of  revelation,  but  the  one  fountain  of  the  written 
word,  carried  forward  in  the  stream  of  Church  con- 
sciousness."* 

AGREEMENT  OF  THE  REFORMERS. 

According  to  our  author,  this  opinion  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  Ertgland  and  her  daughter 
in  America,  and  we  may  add,  that  it  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  old  and  the  new  Lutheran  schools,  both  in 
Europe  and  America,')'  though  not  of  the  middle 

«  Schaf.  Prot.  Principle,  82,  87.  Chemnitz  Exam.  Coun. 
Trent.  Part  I.  120. 

t  See  Dr.  Nevin's  Sermon  before  the  German  Reformed 
Triennial  Convention,  1844,  referred  to  in  Schaf.  170.  The 
doctrines  of  the  New  Lutheran  Schtol  are  the  undoubted 
doctrines  held  by  Luther,  though  his  language  was  not  al- 
ways consistent  with  them.  Indeed,  it  would  be  expecting 
more  than  we  have  any  right  to  ask,  to  require,  that  a  man, 
educated  as  Luther  had  been,  circumstanced  aa  he  was,  with 
enemies  like  those  about  him,  should  always,  in  all  situations, 
in  public  and  in  private,  speak  with  entire  accuracy  or  even 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  29 

schools  of  dogmaticism,  indifferentism  and  rational- 
ism,* and  that  it  pervades  extensively  the  Reform- 
consistency  on  every  point.  The  latest  deliberate  acts  of  such 
a  man,  must  be  regarded  as  his  maturest  opinion — as  the 
best  exposition  of  his  own  doctrines.  But  these  Luther  was 
not  permitted  to  carry  out.  "  Much,"  says  a  learned  English 
writer,  "  both  in  the  internal  and  external  circumstances  of 
the  German  Reformation,  occurred  to  prevent  its  full  and 
adequate  development.  Had  this  been  perfected  in  the  spirit 
in  which  its  great  instrument  might  have  completed  it,  if  per- 
mitted tranquilly  to  finish  his  work,  or  supported  by  others, 
acting  in  his  own  principles,  and  surveying  the  whole  system 
of  Revelation  with  the  comprehensive  and  discriminating 
view  of  his  master  mind,  the  history  of  the  German  Church 
had  probably  been  altogether  different ;  the  results  which  it 
is  now  reaching,  after  centuries,  [in  the  new  Lutheran 
school,]  and  at  which  it  is  arriving  through  a  fearful  transi- 
tion, might  have  been  even  then  attained."  Pusey's  Germ. 
Theol.  I.  7. 

*  This  remark  is  true  of  the  whole  period,  from  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  A.  D.  1580,  to  the  rise  of 
the  new  Lutheran  School,  of  the  orthodox,  as  well  as  of  others. 
Though  this  Formula  was  composed  almost  entirely  in  the 
words  of  Luther,  it  did  not  fairly  represent  his  sentiments, 
inasmuch  as  it  embodied  ideas  hastily  thrown  out  in  contro- 
versy, and  oftentimes  subsequently  recalled  or  modified,  along 
with  his  maturer  judgments.  From  the  adoption  of  the  For- 
mula, until  the  rise  of  the  New  Lutheran  School,  the  ortho- 
dox scarcely  spoke,  except  in  the  language  of  the  Symbolical 
Books,  and  those  who,  as  did  Calixtus,  referred  to  primitive 
antiquity  as  a  secondary  authority,  were  persecuted  without 
mercy.  No  writers  of  this  period,  therefore,  can  be  received 
as  fairly  representing  the  opinion  of  the  Reformers.  The 


30  PURITANISM 

ed  Communions  of  Germany  and  their  descendants 
in  America.*  But  though  this  was  the  common 
doctrine  of  all  the  Reformers,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land alone  so  incorporated  it  into  her  system,  as  to 
be  able  to  retain  it  in  practical  life,  and  has,  there- 
fore, been  able  to  retain  entire,  that  objective  tra- 
dition, which  is  "  that  aggregate  faith  of  the 
Church  through  all  ages,  as  exhibited  in  external 
historical  testimonies,"f  which  all  other  bodies  have, 

writers  of  the  first  age  were  too  dogmatic — those  of  the  next, 
too  indifferent  to  enter  into  the  feelings  of  the  Reformers. 
The  Pietists,  who  sprung  from  the  school  of  Spener,  could 
not  do  it  for  want  of  ability,  nor  the  later  Supernatiiralists  for 
the  same  reason.  Even  those  who  were  among  the  most 
learned  and  orthodox,  as  for  example,  Storr  and  Flatt,  and 
Rheinhard,  seldom  rose  above  the  lowest  sense  of  the  1'ible 
and  Symbolical  Books.  They  had  no  sense  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  Church,  and  many  of  them  endeavored  by  va- 
rious compromises  to  make  Christianity  as  agreeable  as  pos- 
sible to  the  natural  man.  They  treated  with  the  enemy,  in 
fact,  until  many  of  them  fairly  fell  over  to  his  side,  as  in  the 
case  of  Schott,  Ammon,  and  Bretschueider.  Wingard  RPV. 
Church,  182, 183.  Schaf.  147.  Pmiey  Germ.  Theol.  I.  7—25, 
125-186,  II.  119—313,  362— 422.  Sack's  Lett  to  Pusey,  11. 
Bretschneider's  reply  to  Rose,  27-42.  For  the  peculiarities  and 
the  influence  of  the  Rationalistic  School,  see  New  England- 
ism  not  the  Religion  of  the  Bible,  22 — 33.  And  for  some  of 
the  causes  that  have  contributed  to  the  introduction  of  the  im- 
proved condition  of  things,  the  State  of  Religion  in  England 
and  Germany  Compared,  34 — 38. 

*  Dr.  Nevin's  sermon,  ubi  supra. 

t  Comp.  Moeh.  352,  Schaf.  7.45. 


NOT  GENUINE  PHOTESTANTISM.  31 

in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  lost.  Even  the  Con- 
tinental Reformers  themselves,  from  the  peculiarity 
of  their  situation,  and  the  supposed  necessity  of  the 
case,  were  led  to  give  up  one  important  point, 
which  they  acknowledged  to  be  part  of  this  "  ag- 
gregate faith  of  the  Church  in  all  ages" — the  ne- 
cessity of  Episcopacy  to  the  well-being,  if  not  to 
the  being  of  a  Church,*  and  all  the  evils  arising 
from  other  sources,  in  those  communions,  have,  no 
doubt,  been  increased  and  perpetuated  by  the  ab- 
sence of  this  safeguard. 

KOMISH  VIEW  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

But  there  is  another  principle  which,  so  far  as  the 
Reformation  was  concerned,  is  more  important  and  vi- 
tal than  this  one,  which  called  it  into  being,  and  which 
gave  it  that  moral  power  that  has  enabled  it  to  with- 
stand all  the  attacks  upon  it,  from  within  and  with- 
out— the  doctrine  ofjustificaiion  by  faith.  It  was  this 
which  made  Luther  invincible,  and  which  nerved 
the  martyrs  of  England  for  the  stake.  The  Church 
of  Rome  holds,  that  the  natural  state  of  man  since  the 
fall,  is  one  of  weakness,  not  of  positive  corruption  ; 
so  that  the  power  of  willing  and  doing  good  works, 
though  weakened,  is  not  destroyed,  and  that  they 

*  That  the  Continental  Reformers  would  have  retained  the 
Episcopacy,  if  they  could,  at  first,  has  been  so  often  shown, 
that  no  proof  need  be  added. 


32  PURITANISM 

co-operate  in  the  sinner's  justification.  Conse- 
quently, when  these  powers  are  invigorated  by  the 
gracious  calling,  the  sinner  disposes  himself  to  the 
acquisition  of  the  same,  so  that  GOD'S  grace  and  the 
-human  will  work  in  conjunction  ;  the  one  by  illumi- 
nation, the  other  by  freely  consenting  and  moving 
towards  GOD.*  Justification,  according  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Romanism,  is  not  accomplished  at  once,  but  is 
the  work  of  time, — is  not  the  accounting,  but  the  mak- 
ing of  us  righteous, — is  not  the  act  of  GOD  alone,  but 
the  conjoined  effect  of  GOD'S  grace,  along  with 
faith  and  works  on  our  part.  And  it  carries  its 
estimate  of  human  virtue  so  far,  as  to  teach,  not  only 
the  possibility  of  a  perfect  fulfillment  of  the  whole 
law,  but  also  of  super-meritorious  works,  which  are 
deposited  in  the  treasury  of  the  Church,  to  help  out 
the  short  comings  of  less  obedient  souls. f  Nor  is 
the  grace  by  which  we  are  justified,  in  connection 
with  faith  and  works,  apprehended  by  faith  alone, 
but  communicated,  in  part,  if  not  wholly,  by  the 
sacraments.^ 

PROTESTANT  VIEW  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

To  this  view  the  whole  body  of  Reformers  op- 

»  Coun.  Trent,  Sess.  VI.  cc.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  10,  Can.  5,  6,  7, 
Moeh.  134—142.  Comp.  Schaf.  56,  57.  Views  of  Gospel 
Truth,  ]  9,  23. 

t  Coun.  Trent,  ubi  sup.  Hooker  on  Just.  §3 — 5.  Moeh. 
168—201.  Views  of  Gospel  Truth,  42-45,  78,  79. 

I  Coun.  Trent,  Sess.  VI.  cc.  7,  8,  15.     Sess.  VII.  c.  1. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  33 

posed  the  primitive  and  scriptural  doctrine,  of  man's 
entire  alienation  from  GOD  and  his  justification  by 
faith  only.  Thus  all  merit  on  the  part  of  man  is 
set  aside,  and  all  ability  of  man  to  co-operate  in  the 
work  of  justification,  forever  set  at  rest. 

ITS  FOUNDATION. 

The  great  principle  of  the  Reformation,  there- 
fore,— -that  which  has  with  much  truth  and  propriety 
been  called  the  Protestant  Principle,  is  that  of 
justification  by  faith,  and  which,  as  taught  by  all  the 
Reformers,  both  English  and  Continental,  was  based 
on  the  assumption,  that  man  by  the  fall,  "  lost  not 
only  the  image  of  GOD,  but  also  all  power  and 
ability,  either  of  willing  or  doing  works,  pleasing 
and  acceptable  to  GOD,  in  consequence  of  which  the 
heart  became  wholly  estranged  from  GOD,  and  con- 
tinually prone  to  evil."*  Hence  they  deduced  that 
prime  article  of  the  Reformation,  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  the  sinner's  justification  before  GOD,  by  the 
merit  of  CHRIST  alone,  through  faith.~f 

*  Schaf.  60.  Views  of  Gospel  Truth,  17—19.  Augs. 
Conf.  Art.  2,  4,  Smalk.  Art.  3 :  1.  Helv.  Conf.  ii.  8,  9. 
Heidi.  Cat.  Ques.  7,  8.  Gall.  Conf.  Art.  10,  11.  Belg. 
Conf.  Art.  15.  Can.  Syn.  Dort.  cap.  Ill  art.  1,  2, 3- 

t  This  is  the  full  statement  as  given  by  Schaf.  Prot.  Prin. 

p.  54.     The  New  Englander,  the  champion  of  Puritanism, 

says  "  the  fundamental   principle  of  Protestantism,"  that  is, 

Puritanism, "  is  that  the  Bible  is  authority,  and  the  only  au- 

3 


34  PURITANISM 

ITS  CONSEQUENCES. 

Tliis  doctrine,  viewed  in  relation  to  the  material 
or  life.principle,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  justification 
of  the  sinner  before  GOD,  by  the  merit  of  CHRIST 
alone,  through  faith.  Viewed  in  relation  to  the 
formal  or  knoirledgc-princijJe,  and  it  is  the  proposi- 
tion, that  tlie  Word  of  GOD,  as  it  has  been  handed 
down  in  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is 
the  pure  and  proper  source,  as  veil  as  the  only  cer- 
tain measure,  of  all  saving  truth.* 

thority  in  religion,  the  sole  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice."  N.  E.  II.  66, — a  position  that  is  contradicted  by 
every  page  of  history  relating  to  the  Reformation.  "It  is  a 
very  current  idea,"  says  Schaf.  Prot.  Prin.  53,  "  particularly 
in  the  Reformed  Church,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  exclusive 
authority  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  form*  the  proper  center 
and  root  of  Protestanism.  But  this  we  can  not  admit,  al- 
though the  Christian  life  of  the  Reformers  was  shaped  from 
the  beginning  by  the  Scriptures.  For  this  principle  is  formal 
only,  and  so  secondary,  presupposing  the  presence  of  a  defi- 
nite substance  which  it  mast  include.  In  order  that  tho 
Scriptures  may  be  taken  as  the  exclusive  source  and  measure 
of  Christian  truth,  it  is  necessary  that  the  faith  in  CHRIST  of 
which  they  testify,  should  be  already  at  hand,  and  that  their 
contents  should  have  been  made  to  live  in  the  heart,  by  the 
power  of  the  HOLY  GHOST,  accompanying  the  word  and  the 
Church."  This  is  all  for  which  Churchmen  contend. 

*  Schaf.  71.  The  Puritans  say,  "  the  sole  fountain,  stand- 
ard nnd  judge,"  and  the  Romanist  charge  the  same  upon  the 
Reformers.  Comp.  N.  E.  II.  66,  and  Moeh.  382.  The  Re- 
formers said  "  source  and  measure"  not  judge. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  35 

SENSE  OF  SCRIPTURE,  HOW  DETERMINED. 

Thus  far  there  is  no  controversy  among  true 
Protestants.  Nor  was  there  any  controversy  among 
the  Reformers,  as  to  the  further  question,  how  the 
sense  of  these  books  is  to  be  ascertained  and  de- 
termined. The  boasted  right  of  private  judgment, 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  language,  never  entered 
their  thoughts.  They  held,  that  while  faith  alone  justi- 
fies, it  produces  good  works,  as  its  necessary  fruit ; 
so  also,  that  while  the  word  of  GOD  is  the  only  fountain 
and  source  of  knowledge,  it  flows  forward  in  the 
Church,  and  comes'there  continually  to  clearer  and 
deeper  consciousness  ;  *  and  that  the  interpretation 
which  we  are  bound  to  receive  on  all  great  points 
of  doctrine,  and  by  which  we  are  to  abide,  is  that  sense 
which  has  been  apprehended  and  settled  by  the 
Church.f  Hence,  the  Catholic  Creeds  ;•  the  de- 
cisions of  all  General  Councils,  that  could  properly 
be  called  such  ;  and  the  consent  of  the  early  Church, 
were  considered  as  binding  on  us,  in  all  important 
questions  of  doctrine.^: 

»  Schaf.  71. 

tSchaf.  81,  87. 

t  This  is  substantially  the  view  of  all  Churchmen,  though 
it  is  one  which  has  given  Mr.  Hall  so  much  trouble.  It  IB 
evident  that  he  neither  knows  the  nature  of  the  rule  of  Vin- 
cent of  Lerins,  which  is  applied  to  all  such  inquiries,  nor  un- 
derstands the  principle  of  its  application.  Had  he  known 
th:s,  he  would  have  seen,  that  it  matters  little  whether  we 


36  PURITANISM 

WHO  ARE  TRUE  PROTESTANTS. 

This  being  the  true  Protestant  principle,  those 
only  are  true,  are  genuine  Protestants,  who  con- 
tinue to  hold  and  teach  the  same  ;  those  only  who  do 
this,  are  prepared,  or  even  able  to  fight  over  the 
battles  of  the  Reformation  ;  they  alone  can  enter 
into  the  feelings  and  understand  the  language  of  the 
Reformers.  And  it  was  the  agreement  of  the  Eng- 
lish and  Continental  Reformers,  upon  these  great  and 
fundamental  principles,  that  produced  the  sympathy 
between  them,*  and  not  as  our  author  supposes, 
a  want  of  attachment  to  the  primitive  and  apostolic 
organization  that  had  been  retained  in  England,  but 
reluctantly  given  up  on  the  Continent.f 

confine  ourselves  to  two,  three,  four,  or  more  centuries — that 
we  must  come  to  the  same  result.  The  rule  is,  "  first  the 
Bible,  next  the  teaching  of  the  Church  Catholic  ;" — that  this 
teaching  applies  only  to  "  what  has  believed  every  where,  al- 
ways, and  by  all."  Vine,  on  Heresy,  etc.  i.  1,  3.  The  three 
tests  of  Catholic  teaching  are,  Universality,  Antiquity,  and 
Consent.  When  our  author  comes  to  understand  the  nature 
and  application  of  these  tests,  he  will  be  relieved  of  his  diffi 
culty. 

*  See  on  this  subject  Appendix,  Note  A. 

t  On  p.  279,  our  author,  in  reply  to  a  passage  in  the  Primi- 
tive Church,  says,  "  it  is  notorious  that  the  English  Reform- 
ers uniformly  treated  the  non-Episcopal  Foreign  Churchea 
and  ministers,  as  true  Churches  and  ministers."  If  this  is 
"  notorious,"  he  should  have  specified  some  instances,  not 
considered  and  disproved  in  the  "  Primitive  Church."  Until 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  37 

PURITANISM  A  DISEASE  OF  PROTESTANTISM. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  to  inquire  whether  Pu- 
ritanism be  genuine  Protestantism  ;  whether  it  can 
fairly  be  employed  as  a  standard  by  which  to  judge 
of  the  Reformers  and  the  Reformation ;  whether  it  is 
to  be  regarded,  as  we  suppose,  as  one  of  its  diseases  ; 
or  whether,  as  our  author  imagines,  it  is  to  be  consid- 
ered as  the  form  of  its  life.  The  author  of  The  Pu- 
ritans and  their  Principles,  with  all  his  co-laborers, 
regards  it  as  the  purest  form  of  Protestantism,  as  its 
most  living,  active,  vital  representative.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  profound  and  eminently  learned  Dr.  SchaffJ 

this  is  done,  his  wholesale  assertions  must  go  for  mere  decla- 
mation. He  has  given  us  nothing  but  the  opinions  of  indi- 
viduals. We  want  the  acts  of  the  Church.  But  if  we  were  to 
allow  the  facts  to  be  as  he  alleges,  it  would  by  no  means  follow 
that  we  have  departed  from  the  principles  of  the  Reformers. 
If  our  author  desires  to  see  what  would  have  been  then 
thought  of  such  notions  of  the  Church  and  the  ministry  as  he 
holds,  we  would  refer  him  to  the  history  of  Lewis  Hetzer, 
John  Campanus,  Michael  Servetus,  Valentine  Gentilis,  and 
Loelius  Socinius,  all  of  whom  were  put  to  death  by  the  Con- 
tinental Reformers,  for  teaching  doctrines  which  we  suppose 
our  author  would  pronounce  orthodox.  Bayle  III.  151,  IV. 
338.  V.  168,  Moeh.  536.  If  the  Reformers  put  men  to  death 
as  heretics  for  holding  similar  opinions  to  those  of  modern 
Puritanism,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  are  to  fellowship 
those  doctrines  now,  because  those  who  hold  them,  ignorantly 
suppose  them  to  be  the  genuine  doctrines  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. 


38  PURITANISM 

fresh  from  the  new  Lutheran  School  of  Germany,  and 
now  Professor  of  Church  History  and  Biblical  Lit- 
erature in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church  at  Chambersburgh,  Pennsylvania, 
does  not  hesitate  to  classify  it  among  the  things  pro- 
duced by  one  of  the  "diseases  ofProtestanism" — the 
Sect-system ;  which  he  tells  us,  "  must  be  considered 
the  more  dangerous,  [i.  e.  than  Rationalism,  its 
other  disease,]  because  it  ordinarily  appears  in  the 
imposing  garb  of  piety — Satan  transformed  into  an 
Angel  of  light."  * 

SUMMARY     OF    PURITAN     PRINCIPLES. 

The  principles  of  Puritanism,  as  stated  by  our 
author,  and  by  which  he  judges  of  our  departure 
from  the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  are—justifi- 
cation by  faith  a/one,  the  fundamental  principle  of 
the  Reformation;  the  Bible  alone,  the  rule  of  fii  h 
and  duty ;  CHRIST  alone,  the  sole  law-giver  of  his 
Church  ;  no  human  traditions  in  proof  for  matters  of 
faith  ;  no  human  inventions  to  be  imposed  as  essen- 
tial parts  of  divine  worship ;  these  were  the  origi- 
nal principles  for  which  the  Puritans  contended,  f 
This  may  be  Puritanism,  but  it  is  very  far  from  being 
genuine  Protestantism,  as  that  was  understood  by 
the  Reformers  themselves.  What  they  would  have 
said  to  such  an  unchurchly  view  of  Church  principles, 

•  Schaf.  117  t  Hall.  30. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  39 

those  familiar  with  their  writings  can  easily  guess. 
They  would  have  inquired  for  the  Church,  for  the 
Ministry,  and  for  the  Sacraments.  They  would 
wished  to  have  known  why  nothing  was  said  of  the 
body  of  CHRIST,  why  the  sacred  office  of  GOD'S  min- 
istry had  been  overlooked,  and  how  the  holy  Sacra- 
ments could  have  been  forgotten  ?  The  presentation 
of  such  a  summary  of  principles  as  a  Protestant 
Creed,  would  have  subjected  the  proposer  to  the 
anathema  of  every  Reformer,  from  Cranmer  to 
Zuingle. 

DEVIATIONS  OF  PURITANISM  FROM  THE  REFOR- 
MATION  (1.)  JUSTIFICATION. 

• 

They  taught  the  doctrine  of  "justification  by  faith 
alone,"  but  as  a  consequence  of  their  view  of  man's 
depravity.  Had  any  then  taught,  as  many  now  do, 
that  man's  natural  state,  subsequent  to  the  fall,  is 
one  of  spiritual  weakness  and  debility,  but  not  of 
positive  corruption,  they  would  have  been  handed 
over  to  the  Romanists  without  ceremony.  *  They 

*  The  case  of  Victoria  Strigel,  a  pupil  of  Melancthon,  a 
clergyman  of  Weimar,  and  Professor  in  the  University  of 
Jena,  is  a  case  in  point.  For  teaching  that  man  still  retains 
ability  to  repent  and  turn  to  GOD,  and  that  he  is  not  entire- 
ly passive  in  conversion,  he  was  imprisoned  three  years,  from 
1559  — 1562,  and  was  finally  released  through  the  interpo- 
sition of  foreign  princes.  Mosh.  III.  16.  Pusey,  1.  16. 
Moeh.  144. 


40  PURITANISM 

knew  no  middle  ground.  A  being  whose  spiritual 
powers  had  been  destroyed,  and  his  nature  corrupt- 
ed, could  do  nothing  to  merit  pardon,  nothing  towards 
his  justification:  one  whose  powers  had  only  been 
weakened,  and  whose  nature  was  not  sinful,  might 
do  something  towards  both.  The  difference  was 
heaven-wide  ;  it  was  the  difference  between  Prot- 
estantism and  Romanism.  We  should  be  glad  to 
know  where  our  author  stands  in  this  respect.  The 
old  Puritans  would  not  have  left  us  in  the  dark  upon 
so  important  a  point.  If  he  stands  on  the  true  Protes- 
tant ground,  why  is  he  silent?  If,  on  the  contrary, 
he  stands  on  new  Calvinistic  ground,  *  he  has  giv- 
en up  the  foundation  on  which  the  "Protestant  Prin- 
ciple" rests,  and  is  no  longer  a  a  true  Proteatant. 

WHAT  IS    THE    BIBLE. 

There  is  a  very  important  or  fundamental  inqui- 
ry arising  in  this  place,  which  our  author  seems  to 
have  overlooked  ;  what  is  the  Bible  ?  We  refer  not 
now  to  the  proper  mode  of  determining  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  but  how  are  we  to  know  what  books  should 
compose  the  canon.  Our  author  says  (p.  253)  "  The 

Bible  is  complete its  canon  is  fixed  and 

unalterable."  But  he  adds,  "  no  research  has  been 
able  wholly  to  separate  the  spurious  writings  attribu- 

*  As  he  is  said  to  do,  seo  Calendar  II.  26,  and  Views  of 
Gospel  Truth,  59 — 75,  for  the  New  Calvinistic  opinions. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  41 

ted  to  the  Fathers,  from  the  true."  One  knows  not 
which  of  these  assertions  imply  the  greatest  want 
of  information.  We  have  no  doubt  on  the  subject 
of  the  Canon,  for  the  Church  has  settled  the  ques- 
tion for  us.  But  "  the  private  judgment"  of  our  au- 
thor's associates  is  so  far  from  being  settled,  that 
there  is  scarce  a  book  in  either  Testament,  that 
some  of  them  do  not  doubt ;  though  there  is  a  gen- 
eral agreement  among  them  as  to  which  of  the 
Fathers  are  genuine.* 

(2.)    INTERPRETATION    OP    THE  BIBLE. 

The  Reformers,  too,  received  the  Bible  alone 
as  "  the  source  and  fountain  of  all  saving  truth."  But 
they  never  dreamed  of  the  modern  notion  of  making 
that  blessed  book,  as  construed  by  every  man's 
whim  and  fancy,  as  interpreted  by  every  man's  pri- 
vate judgment,  the  rule  either  of  faith  or  duty.  They 
believed  in  a  living,  Christian  consciousness,  mani- 
fested in  the  Creeds  and  Confessions  of  the  early 
Church,  in  the  decrees  of  those  General  Councils 
that  could  properly  be  called  such,  and  in  the  consent 
of  primitive  antiquity,  which  was  binding  on  us ; 
and  they  continually  appealed  to  all  as  proof,  f  They 

*  See  New  Eng.  not  Rel.  Bible,  23—27. 

t  Luther  himself  appealed  from  the  Pope  to  a  General 
Council,  and  the  other  Reformers  did  the  same.  Scott's  Lu- 
ther, I.  106.  Schaf.  81.  Cranmer  also  made  an  "  Appeal 
from  the  Fope  to  the  next  General  Council,"  and  so  did  the 
Reformers  generally. 
8* 


42  PURITANISM 

aimed  at  making  no  discoveries,  and  pretended  to 
no  discoveries.  They  only  desired  to  wipe  off  the 
accumulated  dust  of  ages,  and  to  restore  the  body 
of  CIIKIST  to  its  primitive  brightness  and  purity,  in 
doctrine  and  discipline.  Puritanism  on  this  point,  as 
represented  by  our  author,  is  as  diverse  from  Prot- 
estantism, as  from  Romanism  itself. 

(3.)  LEGISLATIVE  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  Reformers,  too,  in  common  with  Romanists 
also,  believed  CHRIST  to  be  the  source  and  fountain 
of  all  power  in  the  Church  ;  in  the  highest  sense, 
"the  sole  law-giver  of  his  Church."  But  that  man 
can  know  little  of  those  men  or  the  history  of  their 
times,  who  imagines  that  they  did  not  allow  a 
subordinate  legislative  power  in  CHRIST'S  Church, 
acting  in  His  name,  and  by  His  authority,  in  things 
not  contrary  to  the  revealed  Word.  And  this  power 
was  exercised  in  every  Reformed  community,  in 
framing  Articles  of  Religion,  and  prescribing  forms 
of  worship.* 

•  AuRsbarjjh  Confession,  1530.  Confession  of  Basle,  1532, 
re-adopted  1561.  Helvetic  Confession,  153(>.  Smalkaldic  Ar- 
ticles, 1537.  Confession  of  Wittenberg,  1552.  Gallic  Con- 
fession, 1559.  Bel gic  Confession,  1566.  Bohemian  Confession, 
1573.  Our  author  himself,  in  another  place,  (p.  307,)  allows 
the  principle  of  a  limited  legislative  j>ower  in  the  Church, 
but  supposes  it  to  reside  hi  each  particular  congregation,  ra- 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.        43 
(4.)  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Tho  Reformers  too,  Continental  as  well  as 
English,  admitted  "  human  traditions,"  as  our  author 
calls  them,  as  "proof  in  matters  of  faith."  They 
received  and  bowed  submissively  to  the  testimony 
and  tradition  of  the  early  Church,  as  expressed  in 
the  Council  of  Nice,  in  regard  to  the  relation  borne  by 
the  Son  to  the  Father  ; — that  of  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople, in  regard  to  the  character  and  office  of  the 
HOLY  GHOST,  and  that  of  other  later  Councils  on 
other  important  points  of  doctrine  ;  *  and  they  even 


ther  than  in  National  Synods,  or  General  Councils.  And  he 
quotes  the  opinion  of  Neander,  whom  he  styles  "  the  most 
distinguished  ecclesiastical  historian  of  the  present  day,"  as 
conclusive  authority  on  this  point.  Our  author  seems  not  to 
bo  aware  that  he  has  conceded  the  whole  point  at  issue,  in. 
regard  to  the  existence  of  a  legislative  authority  in  the 
Church,  reducing  the  inquiry  simply  to  the  place  where  that 
authority  is  lodged,  and  that  the  authority  of  Neander  cannot 
help  him.  The  General  Association  of  Connecticut  has  been 
very  express  upon  this  subject.  In  a  report  on  the  subject  of 
Councils,  it  is  said,  "  though  Christians  have  differed  much 
in  opinion  as  to  what  constituted  the  supreme  judicature  [of 
the  Church,]  yet  in  every  form  of  Church  government,  there 
has  been  this  supreme  tribunal,  whose  decision  has  been  es- 
teemed final."  Proceedings,  1822,  p.  23.  See  Note  B. 

*  "  The  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  have  unhesita- 
tingly appropriated  to  themselves  the  oecumenical  symbols, 
as  true  expressions  of  Church  consciousness."  Schaf.  88,  9. 


44  PURITANISM 

went  so  far  as  to  appeal  their  own  cause  from  the 
judgment  of  the  Pope,  to  that  of  a  General  Council. 
They  also  retained,  in  Geneva  and  Germany  as 
well  as  in  England,  many  things  in  public  worship 
which  our  author  would  consider  as  "  human  inven- 
tions."* 

(5.)  MATURE  OF  THE  CHVRC1I. 

But  the  difference  between  Puritanism  and  Pro- 
testantism, is  even  more  clearly  seen  in  the  different 
views  entertained  by  them,  in  regard  to  the  Church, 
the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments.  We  have  already 
seen  that  Protestantism  regards  the  Church  as  the 
body  of  CHRIST,  as  an  institution  founded  by  Him, 
proceeding  out  of  His  loins,  anointed  by  His  SPIRIT, 
the  medium  by  which  His  life  is  conveyed  to  its 
members,  the  continuation  of  the  earthly  human 
life  of  the  Redeemer,  in  His  threefold  office  of 
Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,f — and  that  it  is  the  ful- 
ness of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  al!4  But  Puritanism, 

*  The  Lutherans  retain  the  gown,  the  cross,  the  crucifix, 
the  wafer,  candles  upon  the  altar,  make  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  and  practice  confession,  etc.  etc. 

t  But  our  author  exclaims  with  astonishment  at  this  very 
idea.  302,  355. 

t  Our  author  expressly  denies  (p.  281)  that  Eph  i.  23, 
from  which  this  language  is  quoted,  and  also  Eph.  v.  25,  27, 
has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  Church  as  an  organized  or  visi- 
ble body.  But  Eph.  iv.  11,  12,  he  applies  to  the  visible 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  45 

as  represented  by  our  author  and  his  cotemporaries, 
knows  nothing  of  all  this, — believes  nothing  of  all 
this.  It  denies  the  existence  of  any  such  body,  and 
can  form  no  idea  of  any  such  means  of  communicat- 
ing grace.  It  begins  by  dividing  off  the  whole  body 
of  the  truly  pious,  into  a  distinct  and  independent 
regiment,  united  to  CHRIST,  not  by  means  of  the 
Church  which  is  His  body,  but  by  some  invisible 
bond,  directly  to  the  head  itself,  conferring  upon 
these  individuals,  all  spiritual  blessings  and  graces,* 
thus  leaving  the  invisible  Church,  poor,  and  wretch- 
ed, and  naked,  so  far  as  any  spiritual  office,  blessing, 
or  object  is  concerned,  f  And  having  done  this, — • 
having  dwelt  upon  this  beggarly  idea  of  a  Church, 
human  in  its  origin,  authority,  and  power,  until  it  ia 
incapable,  by  its  oAvn  confession,  even  of  understand- 
ing the  language  of  the  Reformers  and  of  those  who 
truly  represent  their  sentiments,^:  they  turn  round 
and  gravely  charge  those  who  stand  in  the  old  paths, 
with  having  departed  from  the  teaching  of  those 
eminent  men  of  GOD,  with  idolatry  almost,  with 
superstition  quite,  in  believing  that  "the  Church  is 

Church,  (p.  282.)  By  what  rule  of  logic  or  law  of  exegesis 
he  applies  the  beginning  and  end  of  a  narrative  to  an  invisi- 
ble body,  and  the  middle  to  a  visible  body,  we  are  not  told. 

*  Hall,  2Bl,  et.  seq.  New  Englandism  not  the  Religion  of 
the  Bible,  38,  39. 

t  Views  Gospel  Truth,  97—99. 

t  Dick  Lect.  Theol.  XCI. 


40  PURITANISM 

the  Mother  from  which  the  Christian  derives  his 
religious  life,  and  to  which  he  owes  constant  fidelity, 
gratitude,  and  obedience."  And  such  are  the  men 
who  charge  Churchmen  with  having  departed  from 
the  faith  of  the  Reformers,  and  with  being  anxious 
to  return  to  the  embrace  of  the  "mother  of  harlots." 
Because  the  ideas  entertained  by  these  men  of 
the  Church,  are  gross  and  carnal,  they  cannot  un- 
derstand those  who  have  entered  into  any  thing  like 
a  full  comprehension  of  the  deep  mystery  of  "  CHRIST 
and  his  Church."  They  have  lost  sight  of  that  doc- 
trine,  so  precious  in  the  sight  of  the  Reformers  and 
the  primitive  Christians,  that  to  those  who  have 
been  justified  by  faith,  through  the  merits  of  CHRIST, 
"a  new  nature  has  been  imparted  also,  by  an  actual 
communication  of  the  Saviour's  life  over  into  his 
person,"  through  the  medium  of  the  Church.  They 
know  nothing  of  that  blessed  doctrine,  "that  the 
very  life  of  the  LORD  JKSUS  is  found  reaching  over 
into  the  person  of  the  renewed  man,  and  gradually 
transfusing  it  with  its  own  heavenly  force."  They 
can  not  even  conceive  how  that  "the  life  of  the  be- 
liever  involves  a  communion  with  the  body  of 
CHRIST,  as  well  as  with  His  Spirit."*  Nor  can 
they  imagine  how  bald,  and  barren,  and  unsatisfac- 
tory is  the  modern  Puritan  view  of  the  Church,  to 
those  who  have  felt  the  power  of  the  true  faith  in 
their  inmost  souls. 

•  Nevin's  Sermon,  195,  196. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  47 

(6.)    NATURE    OF   THE    MINISTRY. 

The  Reformers  also  taught  the  divine  institution 
and  perpetual  obligation  of  the  sacred  ministry,  "  and 
they  attached,  as  every  one  knows,"  says  a  learned 
and  judicious  writer  of  the  present  day,  "  an  impor- 
tance 'and  sacredness  to  the  office  of  preacher,  which 
we  are  apt  to  consider  extravagant ;  and  not  without 
reason,  if  the  circumstances  of  our  own  day  are  to 
regulate  our  belief."*  With  these  exalted  notions 
of  the  ministry,  the  Puritanism  of  our  author  and  his 
cotemporaries,  has  nothing  in  common.f  Nor 
would  it  be  consistent  or  reasonable  to  confer  any 
spiritual  functions  upon  the  officer  of  such  an  unspir- 
itual  body  as  is  the  Church,  according  to  their 
opinion. 

(7.)    NATURE    OF   THE    SACRAMENTS. 

And  with  the  unspiritualizing  of  the  Church  and 
the  degrading  of  the  ministry,  we  also  find  among 
the  modern  Puritans,  a  degradation  of  the  Sacra- 
ments also.  "  The  idea  of  the  inward  union  on  the 
part  of  the  believer,  with  the  entire  humanity  of 
CHRIST,  has  in  all  ages,"  says  a  learned  writer  of 
the  German  Reformed  Communion,  "  entered  deep- 
ly into  the  consciousness  of  the  Church 

Hence  the  earnestness  with  which  the  Reformers 

*  Maurice,  103.  t  Views  Gospel  Truth,  100. 


48  PURITANISM 

generally  maintained  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence 
in  the  sacraments."*  Indeed  upon  no  two  doc- 
trines were  the  Reformers  more  universally  united 
and  none  were  urged,  next  after  justification 
by  faith,  with  more  zeal,  than  those  of  Baptis- 
mal Regeneration,  j"  and  the  Real  Presence  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  CHRIST  in  the  Eucharist4  Up- 
on both  of  these  points,  modern  Puritanism  has  de- 
parted so  far  from  the  principles  of  the  Reformation, 
that  it  charges  those  who  retain  them  with  heresy, 
and  finally  confesses  itself  unable  even  to  attach 

*  Nevin's  Sermon,  198. 

t  Maurice,  94,  106.  "  This  at  least  is  certain, — that  the 
doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  was  held  by  Luther,  not 
in  conjunction  with  that  of  justification  by  faith,  (as  he 
might  have  held  any  doctrine  which  belonged  to  the  natural 
philosophy  of  his  age,)  but  that  he  grounded  the  one  on  the 
other."  Ib.  255.  For  the  opinion  of  Calvin  see  Institutes,  b. 
IV.  rv.  1,  2,  5,  6.  xvii.  1,  and  New  Eng.  not  Rel.  Bib.  44, 45. 
"  It  works  remission  of  sins."  Luth.  Short  Cat  c.  iv.  §4,  2. 
"  Imparts  regeneration  and  forgiveness  of  sins."  Muensch. 
Dog.Hiet.  Fart  II.  o.  ii.  $199.  But  "  the  sacraments  do  not 
produce  justification  as  a  matter  of  course,"  "  without  faith." 
Augs.  Coiif.  XIII.  Luther  also  held,  that  the  spiritual 
work  begun  in  baptism,  continues  through  life.  "  Where- 
fore also  baptism,  TO  xot/T{o»  T»C  <tia.x.x.nu<rtut,  (as  Luther 
says,)  must  be  brought  into  operation  throughout  the  whole 
life."  Titt  Syn.  N.  T.  109.  Compare  Maurice,  249.  "  Bap- 
tism is  not  a  momentary  act  but  a  perpetual  sacrament." 

t  Schaf.  88.  Nevins,  198.  Moeh.  400.  Luther  to  Albert 
of  Prussia.  Calvin  lost.  IV.  xvil  5,  8,  9,  10,  11. 


HOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  49 

any  meaning  to  the  language  applied  to  the  Sacra- 
ments. 

(8.)  SIN  OF  SCHISM. 

Another  point  upon  which  Puritanism  is  at  war 
with  the  principles  of  the  Reformers,  is  that  of 
schism.  "The  gbject  of  the  Reformers,"  says 
the  learned  author  of  The  Protestant  Principle, 
"was  not  to  overturn  the  Church,  and  break  the 
regular  course  of  its  historical  life :  but  to  restore 
it  once  more  to  the  clear  light  and  sure  rule  of  GOD'S 
word ;  not  to  emancipate  the  individual  to  uncon- 
trolled freedom,  but  to  bind  him  to  the  definite  ob- 
jective authority  of  GOD'S  truth  and  grace.  Luther 
exhibited  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  precisely  the 
true  ground  of  Christian  union,  and  fought  with  all 
the  strength  of  his  gigantic  spirit  against  the  fanati- 
cal and  factious  tendencies  of  his  time.  His  last 
wish,  as  that  of  Melancthon  also,  was  for  the 

unity  of  the  Church Calvin  utters  himself 

against  sectaries,  with  his  own  peculiar,  cutting 
severity,  and  repulses  the  reproach  that  Protestantism 
itself  was  a  sect,  in  the  strongest  terms."  *  But 
this  is  not  the  character  of  Puritanism.  It  has,  says 
the  same  author, "  a  zeal  for  GOD,  but  not  according 
to  knowledge.  Inflamed  against  the  despotism  of 

bad  forms,  and  the  abuse  of  such  as  are  good,  it 
\ 

*  Schaf.  119,  190. 


50  PURITANISM 

makes  war  upon  form  in  every  shape,  and  insists 
upon  stripping  the  spirit  of  all  covering  whatever, 
as  though  the  body  were  the  work  of  the  Devil."  * 
"It  has  no  respect  for  history."f  "It  furnishes  no 
security  against  sects.  They  make  their  appeal 
collectively  to  the  sacred  volume  ;  the  devil  himself 
does  the  same  when  it  suits  his  purpose.  Strongly 
also,  as  Puritanism  and  Congregationalism,  in  their 
theocratic  state-Church  period,  endeavored  to  se- 
cure a  religious  and  civil  union  of  its  members,  a 
subordination  of  the  individual  to  the  general,  the 
system  is  clearly  impotent  in  this  direction.  It  in- 
cludes no  limitation  for  the  principle  of  sects.  It  is, 
in  its  own  nature,  unhistorical  and  one-sidedly 
spiritualistic,  and  has  no  reason  on  this  account  to 
require  or  expect  that  its  children  should  be  bound 
by  its  authority,  more  than  itself  had  been  bound  by 
the  authority  of  its  own  spiritual  ancestry."  :£ 

RESULTS  OF  SCHISM. 

After  describing  the  effect  of  these  principles  in 
the  history  of  our  country,  this  author  gives  the  fol- 
lowing painful,  but  graphic  account  of  the  present 
state  of  things.  "  Thus  we  have  come  gradually  to  a 
host  of  sects,  which  it  is  no  longer  easy  to  number, 
and  that  still  continues  to  swell  from  year  to  year. 
Where  the  process  of  separation  is  destined  to  end, 

•  Schaf.  112.         t  Schaf.  113.         t  Schaf.  115. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  51 

no  human  calculation  can  foretell.  Any  one  who 
has,  or  fancies  that  he  has,  some  inward  experience 
and  a  ready  tongue,  may  persuade  himself  that  he 
is  called  to  be  a  reformer ;  and  so  proceed,  at  once, 
in  his  spiritual  vanity  and  pride,  to  a  revolutionary 
rupture  with  the  historical  life  of  the  Church,  to 
which  he  holds  himself  immeasurably  superior.  He 
builds  himself  of  a  night  accordingly  a  new  chapel, 
in  which  now  for  the  first  time  since  the  age  of  the 
Apostles,  a  pure  congregation  is  to  be  formed ;  bap- 
tizes  his  followers  with  his  own  name,  to  which  he 
thus  secures  an  immortality,  unenviable  it  is  true, 
but  such  as  is  always  flattering  to  the  natural  heart  j 
rails  and  screams  with  full  throat  against  all  that  re- 
fuse to  do  homage  to  his  standard  ;  and  with  all  this, 
though  utterly  unprepared  to  understand  a  single 
book  [of  the  Bible,]  is  not  ashamed  to  appeal  con- 
tinually to  the  Scriptures,  as  having  been  sealed  en- 
tirely, or  in  large  part,  to  the  understanding  of 
eighteen  centuries,  and  even  to  the  view  of  the  Re- 
formers themselves,  till  now  at  last,  GOD  has  been 
pleased  to  kindle  the  true  light  in  an  obscure  corner 
of  the  new  world.  Thus  the  deceived  multitude, 
having  no  power  to  discern  spirits,  is  converted,  not  to 
CHRIST,  but  to  the  arbitrary  fancies  and  baseless  opin- 
ions of  an  individual,  who  is  only  of  yesterday.  Such 
con-version  is  of  a  truth  only  per-version,  such  Geo- 
logy, neo-logy ;  such  ex-position  of  the  Bible,  wretch- 
ed im-position.  What  is  built  is  no  Church,  but  a 


52  PURITANISM 

chapel,  to  whose  erection  Satan  himself  has  made 
the  most  liberal  contribution."* 

Such  were  the  principles  of  the  Reformers,  as 
drawn,  not  by  a  "  bigoted  High-Church  Episcopa- 
lian," nor  by  an  "  illiberal  ultra-orthodox  Lutheran," 
but  by  the  more  free  and  liberal  pen  of  a  German 
Reformed  writer.  Such  also  are  the  principles  of 
Puritanism  according  to  our  author,  and  such  its 
tendencies  according  to  the  views  of  those  who 
might  be  expected  to  have  the  greatest  sympathy 
with  them,  the  German  Reformed  of  Europe  and 
America.  How  diverse  the  one  is  from  the  other, 
we  need  not  describe.  We  shall  now  proceed  to  com- 
pare the  doctrine  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  this 
country,  as  represented  by  our  author,  not  with  the 
false  standard  of  Puritanism,  but  with  the  real  doc- 
trines and  principles  of  the  Reformers,  in  much  the 
same  order  in  which  he  has  stated  them.  We 
shall  thus  acertain  whether  we  have  departed  from 
the  old  paths  of  the  Reformation,  as  our  author 
alleges,  or  whether  his  charges  are  based  on  ignor- 
ance and  misrepresentation  of  them. 

01  K  AGREEMENT  WITH  THE  REFORMERS,  WHERE 
PURITANISM  DIFFERS. 

On  p.  30 — 32,  our  author  has  made  a  summa- 
ry of  some  of  those  principles,  which  he  says  are 

*  Schaf.  116. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  53 

maintained  by  the  Episcopal  Church,  against  which 
the  Puritans  are  waging  war,  with  their  utmost 
strength  and  power.  Some  of  the  principal  of  these 
alledged  errors  are : 

(1.)  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

That  we  only  receive  "  the  Holy  Scriptures 
as  they  were  interpreted  by  the  Church"  So  did  all 
the  Reformers,  Continental  as  well  as  English,  so 
does  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  so,  also,  do  the  Lu- 
theran and  Reformed  Communions.  But  Puritan- 
ism pronounces  this  treason  against  GOD.  * 

(2.)  PRIVATE    JUDGMENT. 

That  we  consider  their  "  notions  of  private  judg- 
ment erroneous ;  so  did  all  the  Reformers,  and  so 
do  all  those  who  have  not  cut  themselves  loose  from 

*  We  should  like  our  author's  opinion  on  the  following  Reso- 
lution of  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  passed 
June,  1812.  "  Resolved,  that  a  profession  of  faith,  made  in 
the  words  of  Scripture,  is  no  definite  exhibition  of  the  real 
faith  of  the  professor,  since  all  persons  who  acknowledge  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  would,  although  some  of 
them  in  faith  are  directly  opposed  to  others,  make  the  same 
profession  in  the  same  words."  Proceed,  relative -to  A.  Ab- 
bott, p.  20.  This  doctrine  was  not  peculiar  to  that  session. 
It  is  taught  in  express  terms  by  the  Association  of  New 
Haven  County,  in  their  proceedings  against  Rev.  John  Hub- 
,1770. 


54  PURITANISM 

the  life  of  the  Church — Episcopalians,  Lutherans, 
and  Reformed — yet  Puritanism  glories  in  it 

(3.)  CHURCH  AUTHORITY. 

That  we  hold  that  they  are  "  without  any  suffi- 
cient bond  of  union,"  and  that  receiving  "the  Bible 
alone  to  the  exclusion  of  all  Church  authority,"  must 
result  in  the  "  production  of  most  incongruous  sects." 
No  language  could  be  more  in  accordance  with  that 
of  the  Reformers.  No  doctrine  more  clearly  theirs. 
Nor  is  it  peculiar  to  the  Episcopalian ;  Lutheran 
and  Reformed,  respond  a  hearty  "Amen,"  yet  this 
doctrine  is  one  of  the  most  vital  principles  of  Puri- 
tanism. 

(4.)  THE  CHURCH  THE  MEDIUM  OF  GRACE. 

That  we  consider  "The  Church  the  great  me- 
<lium  of  communicating  divine  grace"  ....  That 
we  teach  that  "The  revelation  of  GOD  offers  salva- 
tion only  through  the  Church" That  we 

hold,  that  "The  true  Church  of  GOD  is  our  only  ark 
of  safety."  True  or  false,  so  taught,  so  held  the 
whole  body  of  the  Reformers,  and  so  do  Lutherans 
and  Reformed,  as  well  as  Churchmen  now  teach. 
But  Puritanism  pronounces  it  heresy. 

(5.)  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION. 

Again  it  is  said,  that  the  "  doctrine  of  baptismal 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  55 

regeneration,  is  directly  opposed  to  the  fundamental 
principles"  of  Puritanism,  [pp.  31,  137.]  But  it 
was  the  doctrine  of  Luther,*  of  Calvin,  and,  indeed, 
of  all  the  Reformers,  and  it  is  the  authoritative  teach- 
ing of  all  the  old  Puritan  standards  themselves.  And 
yet  modern  Puritanism  calls  it  heresy.f 

(6.)  THE  REAL    PRESENCE. 

Again,  the  doctrine  of  the  "  real  Presence  of 
CHRIST  in  the  Eucharist,  is  set  down  as  among  the 
dogmas  which  we  teach,  (pp.  136,  137,)  and  which 
Puritanism  is  endeavoring  to  subvert.:}:  But  Luther 

*  Augs.  Conf.  2,  11.  "The  Lutheran  divines  discovered 
in  the  sacraments,  the  medium  by  which  grace  operates." 
Muensch.  Dog.  Hist.  Part  II.  c.  ii.  §198.  "  Baptism  impart- 
ed regeneration  and  forgiveness  of  sins."  Ib.  §199.  "  It 
works  forgiveness  of  sins,  redeems  from  death  and  the  devil, 
and  gives  eternal  salvation  to  all  that  believe."  Luther's 
Short  Catechism,  c.  iv.  §2.  Calvin  says :  "  In  baptism  GOD 
regenerates  us."  List.  IV.  xvii.  1.  See  also  IV.  xv.  2,  5. 
New  Englandism,  44,  45.  Scot,  and  Pres.  Conf.  xxviii.  6. 
Camb.  and  Say.  Conf.  xxix.  6.  For  the  doctrine  of  the  new 
Lutheran  school  see  Note  C. 

t  New  Eng.  46. 

t  This  "  real  presence,"  necessarily  requires  a  consecra- 
tion, and  necessarily  makes  the  elements  more  than  mere 
emblems,  even  "  effectual  means,  as  well  as  authenticated 
signs  of  grace,"  as  our  author  allows,  pp.  352,  371.  Conse- 
quently his  objection  against  us,  is  an  objection  against  the 
Reformers  themselves. 


56  PURITANISM 

also  taught  it,  and  Calvin  also  taught  it.  Yet  these 
men  had  a  controversy  on  the  subject,  the  effects  of 
which  remain  to  the  present  day,  because  Calvin 
did  not,  in  the  opinion  of  Luther,  teach  it  in  terms 
sufficiently  strong  and  explicit* 


*  This  controversy  related  to  two  points,  (1)  as  to  the  ubiqui- 
ty of  Christ's  glorified  body,  which  Luther  asserted  (Muensch. 
Ib.  §  201)  but  Calvin  denied,  (Inst.  IV.  xviL  30,  where  he 
calls  it  a  "  monstrous  notion,")  and  (2)  whether  the  body  of 
CHRIST  was  imparted  to  the  worthy  recipient  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, along  with  the  elements,  as  Calvin  held,  or  whether  it 
was  also  consubstantiated  with  them,  and  thus  conveyed  by 
them,  as  Lifther  held.  The  bitterness  of  this  controversy 
may  be  judged  of  by  its  effects.  Hardenberg,  a  minister  of 
Bremen,  was  deposed  and  banished  in  1561,  for  teaching  the 
Calvinistic  opinion,  and  his  followers  excommunicated.  Peu- 
cer,  a  physician,  was  imprisoned  ten  years  for  recommending 
for  the  theological  chair  at  Wittenberg,  a  man  who  held  sim- 
ilar sentiments.  Pusey,  I.  16,  17. 

The  Dutch  and  German  Reformed  Churches  in  Europo 
and  America,  alsqnkach  it  in  strong  and  emphatic  terms.  The 
Heidleberg  CatecHism,  the  only  common  symbol  of  the  Ger- 
man and  Dutch  Reformed  Churches,  (Pnsey,  11.391,)  says: 
"  His  crucified  body  and  shed  blood,  are  the  true  meat  where- 
by our  souls  are  fed  unto  eternal  life.  We  are  as  really  par- 
takers of  his  true  body  and  blood  (by  the  operation  of  the 
HOLY  GFIOST)  as  we  receive  by  the  mouths  of  our  bodies 
these  holy  signs  in  remembrance  of  him."  Quest.  79.  See 
also  the  Confession  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Ne- 
therlands, adopted  by  the  Dutch  Reformed  in  this  country- 
Art.  XXXV,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Nevin's  Sermon  so  often  quoted. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  57 

(7.)    AUTHORITY  OP  GENERAL  COUNCILS. 

Again,  he  calls  the  proposition,  often  made  by 
Churchmen,  to  refer  the  unhappy  state  of  the  Church 
to  a  "  General  Council,"  "  a  holy  alliance  to  de- 
throne the  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST,  and  to  give  his  seat 
and  sceptre  into  the  hands  of  a  human  hierarchy !  A 
holy  alliance  to  throw  down  the  Bible  from  the  al- 
tar of  GOD,  and  to  exalt  a  mingled  creed,  the  fruit  of 
an  incestuous  compromise  between  truth  and  false- 
hood." (p.  278.)  And  yet  Luther  made  and  repeat- 
ed this  appeal ;  Crammer  made  the  same  appeal 
among  his  last  acts ;  and  the  great  body  of  the  Re- 
formers,  English  and  Continental,  did  it  over  and 
over  again.  But  Puritanism  will  hear  of  nothing  of 
the  kind. 

(8.)    HOUSEHOLD    BAPTISM. 

Again,  he  objects  to  the  introduction,  of  all  the 
people  of  any  parish,  city,  or  nation,  by  baptism  in- 
to  the  Church  of  GOD  ;  and  the  doing  of  it,  he  re- 
gards as  making  "void  an  acknowedged  ordinance 
of  CHRIST."  (pp.  291 — 293.)  National  Churches, 
of  course,  come  under  a  strong  condemnation,  (p. 
292.)  And  yet  the  Reformers  held  differently  on 
both  points.  They  believed  it  was  the  duty  of  all  to 
receive  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel,  and  if  any  re- 
fused, it  was  the  duty  of  the  magistrate  to  compel 
them ;  and  there  was  not  a  country  where  the  Re- 
formation prevailed,  that  religion  was  not  establish- 
ed by  law.  But  Puritanism  rejects  both. 


68  PURITANISM 

(9.)    REPRESENTATIVE    CHARACTER   OF   THK 
MINISTRY. 

Again,  he  says  that  we  make  the  clergy  CHRIST'S 
"  representatives,"  as  well  as  his  "  ministers,"  and 
calls  it  a  most  "  extravagant  claim."  (p.  302.)  But 
the  Reformers  made  the  same  claim.  Calvin  says  : 
"  We  must  now  treat  of  the  Order  which  it  has  been 
the  LORD'S  will  to  appoint  for  the  government  of  his 

Church as  he  dwells  not  among  us  with 

his  visible  presence,  so  as  to  make  an  audible  de- 
claration of  his  will  to  us  ....  he  uses  the  min- 
istry of  men,  whom  he  employs  as  his  delegates  . 
...  he  choses  from  among  men,  those  who  are  to 
be  his  ambassadors  to  the  world,  to  be  the  interpret- 
ers of  his  secret  will,  and  ever  to  act  as  hi-s  person- 
al representatives."  *  And  Luther,  with  his  high  no- 
tions of  the  sacraments,  could  not  do  otherwise  than 
hold  the  same  doctrine,  though  his  language,  espe- 
cially at  first,  is  not  always  consistent  with  it. 

(10.)  ABSOLUTION. 

Again,  another  serious  objection  in  the  mind  of 
our  author,  against  the  Episcopal  Church,  is  the  doc- 
trine and  practice  of  "Absolution."  (pp.  139,  369.) 
But  he  is  not  aware  that  in  his  zeal  against  us, 
he  equally  condemns  all  the  Reformers.  "In 
regard  to  Confession,"  says  Luther,  in  the  -Augs- 

»  Inst.  IV.  iii.  1. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  59 

burgh  Confession,  "  our  Churches  teach  that  private 
absolution  ought  to  be  retained  in  the  Churches." 
Art.  11.  Again,  "Confession  is  not  done  away  in 
our  Churches,  for  the  body  of  the  LORD  is  not  de- 
livered to  any  except  they  are  first  examined  and 
absolved.  And  the  people  are  most  diligently  in- 
structed in  the  faith  of  absolution,  of  which  before 
this  time  there  was  little  mention.  The  people  are 
taught  to  hold  absolution  in  great  esteem  ;  because 
it  is  the  voice  of  GOD,  and  pronounced  by  his  com- 
mand   and  that  GOD  requires  faith  that 

we  should  give  credence  to  that  absolution  as  to  a 
voice  sounding  from  heaven."  Art.  25.  Calvin  also 
taught  it,  though  in  terms  less  positive  and  explicit.* 
And  it  was  the  doctrine  of  all  the  early  Protestant 
bodies.f  ,4  .. 

We  see,  therefore,  that  on  the  points  touching 
the  Church,  the  ministry,  and  its  representative  cha- 
racter, the  sacraments,  baptismal  regeneration,  the 
real  presence  in  the  Eucharist,  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  and  of  tradition,  the  propriety  of  household 
baptism,  and  the  authority  of  general  councils,  upon 
which  our  author  charges  us  with  having  departed 
from  the  faith  of  the  Reformers,  we  now  hold  the 
very  same  doctrine  as  that  which  was  taught  by 
them  all,  Continental  as  well  as  English.  And  we 
may  add,  that  we  also  agree  with  the  new  Lutheran 

*  List.  III.  iv.  14.  IV.  i.  22. 

t  fling,  b.  XIV.    French  Church  Apol.   III.  ix. 


60  PURITANISM 

School,  and  the  Reformed,  upon  those  very  points. 
That  we  differ  from  Puritanism  upon  every  one  of 
them,  we  are  free  to  confess,  and  this  our  author 
tikes  to  be  the  same  thing  as  differing  from  the 
Reformers.  Indeed,  he  seems  not  to  be  aware, 
1'i.it  Puritanism  is  totally  diverse  from  the  Protestant, 
ism  of  the  Reformation,  or  that  many  of  its  friends 
claim  no  more  than  that  it  is  the  Reformation  re- 
formed ;  we  should  say  rather,  the  Reformation  re- 
volutionized. 

(11.)    JUSTIFICATION. 

We  also  agree  with  the  Reformers,  in  placing 
the  material,  or  life-principle  of  the  Reformation, — 
that  of  the  justification  of  the  sinner  before  GOD  by 
the  merits  of  CHRIST  alone,  through  faith,  before  the 
formal,  or  knowledge-principle,  which  Puritanism 
places  first.  The  fundamental  principle  of  the  Pu- 
ritan faith,  what  it  calls  "  the  Protestant  Principle," 
is,  on  the  contrary,  that  "  the  Bible  is  the  only  au- 
thority in  religion,  the  sole  and  sufficient  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  ;"*  thus  putting  the  external  and 
formal,  the  secondary  and  subordinate,  above  the 
internal,  spiritual,  and  fundamental.  We  agree 
with  the  Reformers  also,  in  regard  to  the  mode  in 
which  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  to  be  determined, 

»  New  Eng.  II.  66. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  61 

abiding  by  that  which  has  been  "  apprehended  and 
settled  by  the  Church  ;"  while  Puritanism,  (theo- 
retically, at  least,)  refers  the  whole  to  the  "  private 
judgment"  of  any  individual.* 

AND    THE    GROUND    OF    ITS    NECESSITY. 

We  also  agree  with  the  Reformers  in  deducing 
the  necessity  of  our  "justification  by  the  merits 
of  CHRIST  alone,  through  faith,"  from  man's  utter 
inability  to  do  any  thing  towards  it  himself.  This 
foundation^  on  which  justification  by  faith  itself  must 
rest,  has  been  given  up  by  all  New  Calvinistic  Pu- 
ritans, and  how  long  they  will  continue  to  hold  the 
faith  resting  upon  the  rejected  foundation,  no  human 
foresight  can  tell,  f 

PURITANISM  CANNOT  UNDERSTAND  THE  REFORM- 
ERS. 

But  when  we  have  said  that  Puritanism  is  not 
the  Protestantism  of  the  Reformation,  we  have  not 
said  all  that  truth  requires.  Puritanism  does  not, 
and  cannot,  understand  the  Reformers.  It  has  cut 
itself  loose  from  the  life  of  the  Church — has  sunder- 
ed the  bond  which  binds  all  in  one  great  whole  ; 
and,  standing  in  an  exterior  relation  to  the  body  it- 
self, can  neither  understand  nor  appreciate  what  is 

*  New  Englandism,  41,  42. 

t  See  Wingard,  191,  192,  for  the  effect  of  such  an  aban- 
donment in  Germany. 


62  PTHITAXISM 

passing  within.  It  judges  erroneously,  therefore, 
because  it  sees  but  a  portion  of  the  evidence,  and 
is  incompetent  to  judge  of  the  remainder,  even 
could  it  be  made  to  see  it.  It  looks  at  the  Reform- 
ers as  it  looks  at  itself.  It  considers  each  individu- 
al as  an  independent  isolated  atom,  bound  to  the 
throne  of  JEHOVAH,  as  by  a  general  law  of  gravi- 
tation ;  not  as  a  single  member  of  one  great  body, 
united  to  the  HEAD  by  joints  and  bands  which  min- 
ister nourishment  to  every  part.  And  it  considers 
union  between  the  parts  as  resulting  merely  from 
elective  affinity,  not  from  a  law  of  life. 

THE     REASON    WHY. 

But  the  Reformers  held  no  such  meagre  and 
lifeless  doctrine.  They  realized  the  great  law  of 
corporiety  every  where  visible  in  GOD'S  dealings 
with  man,*  but  especially  with  his  Church.  They 
regarded  not  themselves  as  mere  individuals,  each 
one  acting  for  himself  alone,  but  as  a  member  of 
that  body  from  which  they  could  not  depart  without 
peril  to  their  souls, — whose  unity  they  could  not 
rend  without  being  guilty  of  heinous  sin,  and  to 
which,  as  well  as  to  COD,  they  were  responsible  for 
all  their  acts.  This  Church  they  knew  they  might 
not  tcuch.  It  was  CHRIST'S  body,  animated  by  His 
Spirit,  the  medium  of  communicating  His  life  to 

*  "  Corporiety  is  the  scope  of  GOD'S  way»."     Oetinger. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  63 

men,  especially  in  and  through  the  sacraments  of 
his  own  institution,  by  a  ministry  of  his  own  ap- 
pointing. These  were  holy  and  sacred,  things 
which  might  not  be  dispensed  with,  or  set  aside. 
All  their  acts  were  done  under  a  sense  of  this  high 
and  mysterious  relation ;  and  it  is  indispensable, 
when  considering  the  Reformation,  that  these  things 
should  be  borne  in  mind.  Otherwise  we  can  never 
understand  either  their  language  or  their  conduct. 
But  this  Puritanism  does  not,  and  can  not  do.  It 
dwells  merely  upon  what  they  did — considers  mere- 
ly the  act,  and  judges  of  the  motive  by  its  own 
false  standard.  It  is  incapable  of  feeling  as  the 
Reformers  did,  in  regard  to  the  Church  and  sacra- 
ments, and  would  not  if  it  could. 

WHY     THE     REFORMERS     SAID     NO     MORE     OF     THE 
CHURCH. 

The  true  reason,  therefore,  why  so  little  was 
said  of  the  Church,  was,  not  that  it  was  disregarded 
or  undervalued,  but,  that  its  character  and  import- 
ance were  not  called  in  question.  Every  thing  was 
done  on  the  assumption  of  its  reality  and  power. 
They  aimed  at  reformation,  not  at  revolution.  Let 
any  one  read  the  Augsburgh  Confession  with  the 
feeling  that  Luther  and  Melancthon  had  when 
they  wrote  it,  and  it  will  seem  a  very  different  thing 
from  what  it  would,  if  interpreted  by  Puritan  exe- 


64  PURITANISM 

gesis.  No  Puritan  could  have  written  that  docu- 
ment, and  no  mere  Puritan  can  understand  it.  It 
recognizes  feelings  that  Puritanism  lias  rooted  out  of 
its  system,  and  breathes  a  spirit  that  Puritanism  re- 
gards as  hostile  to  the  genius  of  true  religion.  The 
same  remark  is  also  true  when  applied  to  the 
XXXIX  Articles. 

DIVINE  INSTITUTION    OF    THE    MINISTRY    IN    THREE 
ORDERS. 

There  is  one  other  point  upon  which  our  author 
charges  Churchmen  with  having  departed  from  the 
faith  of  the  English  Reformers,  which  demands  a 
distinct  consideration.  We  refer  to  the  subject  of 
the  ministry.  That  the  ministry  in  the  Church, 
was  of  divine  appointment,  all  the  Reformers  held, 
but,  from  tenderness  towards  those  who  were  labor- 
ing in  a  common  cause,  or,  for  some  other  reason, 
they  rarely  spoke  out  in  explicit  terms,  in  any  au- 
thoritative document,  as  to  the  form  in  which  that 
ministry  ought  to  be  perpetuated.  And  yet  it  could 
not  be  otherwise  than,  as  the  Reformers  must  have 
foreseen,  that  those,  who  carried  out  their  own  prin- 
ciples, should  conclude,  that  a  divinely  constituted 
ministry  must  be  a  ministry  in  some  form.  And  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  each  community  concluding, 
that  its  own  ministry  was  that  divinely  appointed 
form.  The  Lutheran  and  Cahinistic,  taught  that 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  65 

that  form  was  Presbyterian, — the  Churchmen,  that 
it  was  Episcopal.  Now  it  would  by  no  means  fol- 
low that  we-  departed  from  the  principles  of  the 
English  Reformers,  when  we  assert  the  divine  in- 
stitution and  perpetual  obligation  of  Episcopacy, 
had  they  not  said  a  syllable  on  the  subject. 

THE     ORDINAL. 

But  they  did  not  leave  us  in  doubt ;  they  prepa- 
red and  published  an  Ordinal,  or  solemn  form  of 
ordination,  which  tells  us  of  a  ministry  of  divine 
institution,  perpetuated  from  the  beginning,  in  three 
orders ;  under  which  they  proceeded  to  perpetuate 
the  same  ministry  by  the  same  orders.  This,  then, 
was  the  solemn  judgment  of  the  English  Reformers, 
and  it  is  all  the  highest  Churchman  can  ask.  It  is 
the  carrying  out  of  the  principles  of  the  Reformers, 
by  the  Reformers  themselves. 

APOSTOLICAL     SUCCESSION. 

Another  charge  of  departing  from  the  faith  of 
the  Reformers,  is  based  upon  the  same  facts, 
viewed  in  reference  to  their  consequences,  in  re- 
gard to  the  fact  and  necessity  of  an  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession ;  a  thing  which  our  author  pronounces  "  false 
in  fact,  corrupt  in  doctrine,"  "  the  very  source  of 
all  the  abominations  of  Popery."  (pp.  371,  376)— 
4* 


66 

Now  if  the  Reformers  believed  in  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed ministry,  in  any  form,  and  also  believed 
that  that  ministry  had  been  perpetuated  by  the  reg- 
ular calling  of  those  who  had  tilled  it,  they  believed 
in  the  Apostolical  Succession.  That  they  did  be- 
licve  both  of  these  points,  the  Ordinal  most  expli- 
citly affirms.  Consequently,  no  opinion  of  any  in- 
dividual can  be  allowed  to  contradict  this  solemn 
decision  of  the  Church.  Even  our  author  himself 
allows  that  those  he  condemns  are  but  carrying  out 
the  principles  of  that  Prayer  Book  which  the  Re- 
formers left  us.  It  is,  he  says,  the  system,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  itself,  (p.  370.)  And  yet  he 
charges  those  who  he  confesses  are  faithfully  carry- 
ing  out  the  system  of  the  Church,  with  departing 
from  the  sentiments  of  those  who  formed  and  per- 
fected that  system.  Whatever  consequences  are 
involved  in  this  doctrine,  are  consequences  which 
the  Reformers  must  have  felt  and  seen,  and  whether 
the  principle  be  true  or  false,  there  has  been  no  de- 
parture from  their  sentiments.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
to  a  belief  in  this  doctrine,  that  we  should  hold  to 
the  necessity  ef  being  able  to  trace  the  list  of  Epis- 
copal governors ;  the  law  of  the  Church  being  a 
sufficient  guaranty  of  the  fact,  whether  we  could 
discover  every  link  in  the  chain  or  not.  Our  abili- 
ty, however,  to  trace  the  succession,  adds  certainty 
to  the  fact.  If  either  of  these  points  are  unproved, 
it  must  be  easy  to  show  it.  And  it  would  be  much 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  67 

more  to  the  purpose,  for  our  author  to  point  out  such 
defect  of  proof,  than  to  rest  so  much  upon  the  opin- 
ion of  men  who  have  never  examined  the  subject. 

WHAT  MUST  BE  PROVED  TO  SHOW  THAT  CHURCH- 
MEN HAVE  DEPARTED  FROM  THE  PREACHING  OF 
THE  REFORMERS. 

Those,  therefore,  who  would  convict  Churchmen 
of  departing  from  the  judgment  of  the  English  Re- 
formers, should  show,  either  that  this  Ordinal  does 
not  mean  as  they  suppose,*  or,  that  there  is  some- 
where a  proviso  or  condition  which  allows  others  to 
come  in  and  claim  the  same  privilege.  No  amount 
of  extrinsic  evidence  whatever,  can  overrule  or  set 
aside  this  document,  unless  it  gives  to  the  language 
employed  in  it,  a  sense  different  from  what  we  at- 
tach to  it.  But  our  author  has  not  attempted  this, 
He  has  seen  fit  to  pass  over  the  Ordinal  entirely, 
and  if  his  readers  are  not  so  fortunate  as  to  hear  of 
it  from  some  other  source,  they  will  have  no  know- 

*  This  Mr.  Powell,  in  his  work  "  on,"  or  rather  against 
the  "  Apostolical  Succession,"  has  attempted  to  do,  and  he 
gravely  argues,  that  when  the  Reformers  said  that  "  from  the 
Apostle's  time  there  had  been  these  orders  of  ministers  in 
CHRIST'S  Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,"  and  when 
they  said  that  all  these  were  of  "  divine",  appointment,  they 
only  meant  that  there  were^wo  distinct  orders  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, and  one  office  of  human  origin.  §  VII.  pp.  144, 
168.  Our  author  has  very  wisely  eschewed  such  a  task, 
and  in  this  respect  has  been  more  wise  than  his  masters. 


68  PURITANISM 

ledge  of  its  existence.  We  might,  therefore,  pass 
by  his  whole  array  of  testimonies,  as  totally  irrele- 
vant to  the  point  of  inquiry.  But  waving  this  privi- 
lege,  we  shall  notice  his  several  proofs,  in  order  to 
see  what  they  would  he  worth,  if  there  were  nothing 
else  in  being  on  the  subject. 

OUR  AUTHOR'S  PROOF.     (1.)  THE  INSTITUTION  OF  A 
CHRISTIAN  MAN. 

His  first  testimony  is  from  "  The  Institution  of 
a  Christian  Man,"  published  1538. 

(2.)    A  PAPER    WHICH  FORMS    PART  OF  THAT  BOOK. 

And  his  second,  from  a  paper  incorporated  into 
that  book,  both  of  which  contain  this  passage  :  "In 
the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention  made  of 
any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of 
Deacons  (or  ministers,)  and  Priests  or  Bishops."* 
But  unfortunately  for  our  author,  this  is  the  opinion 
of  these  men  as  Romanists,  not  as  Reformers,  and 
the  same  book  establishing  every  doctrine  of  Roman- 
ism, save  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.f  And  unfortu- 
nately for  our  author's  fairness,  he  knew  the  fact. 

(3.)  THE  ERUDITION  OF  A  CHRISTIAN  MAN. 

His  third  testimony  is  The  Necessary  Erudition 
of  a  Christian  Man,  published   1540,   which  con- 

*  Hall,  46.  t  Prim.  Church,  401,  402,  2d  edition. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  69 

tains  a  similar  sentiment.*  This  was  merely  a  new 
and  enlarged  edition  of  the  former  work,  revised 
by  some  of  the  Bishops,  and  also  corrected  by  the 
King,  and  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  only  being  now 
omitted.f  In  other  respects  it  taught  genuine 
Romanism. 

(4.)  STILLINGFLEET'S  IRENICUM. 

The  remainder  of  his  proof  is  all  copied  second- 
hand from  a  single  work, — Stillingfleet's  Irenicum* 
A  brief  account  of  the  man  and  his  work  is  therefore 
necessary,  in  order  to  understand  the  force  of  this 
evidence. 

STILLINGFLEET'S  PURITAN  EDUCATION. 

EDWARD  STILLINGFLEET,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Worcester,  was  born  at  Cranbourn,  Dorsetshire, 
April  17,  1635,  and  educated  at  St.  John's  College, 
Cambridge,  under  the  Puritan  dynasty,  and  in  1653, 
was  elected,  by  the  Puritan  authorities,  to  the  first 
fellowship  that  became  vacant  after  taking  his  bache- 
lor's degree. 

HIS  IRENICUM  PUBLISHED    UNDER  THE    PURITAN 
DYNASTY. 

In  1657,  he  was  presented  to  the  parish  of  Sut- 
*  Hall,  46.  *  Prim.  Church,  402,  403. 


70  PURITANISM 

ton,  Bedfordshire,  but  was  ordained  by  Bishop 
Brownrigg,  the  ejected  bishop  of  Exeter ;  and  in 
1659,*  being  then  twenty-four  years  of  age,  he  pub- 
lished his  Irenicum,  or  A  Weapon  Sake  for  the 
Church's  Wounds,  etc.  etc.  The  design  of  this  work 
has  been  variously  represented. 

HIS  OWN  ACCOUNT  OF  ITS  DESIGN. 

The  Puritans  seem  to  have  regarded  it  as  a 
sort  of  apology  for  their  principles,f  but  the  au- 
thor himself  some  twenty  years  after,  gives  a  very 
different  account  of  the  matter.  In  an  Epistle 
Dedicatory,  to  an  ordination  sermon  preached  at 
St.  Paul's,  dated  March  15,  1685,  under  the 
assumed  name  of  "P.  D.,"  he  says  it  was  written 
with  the  design  of  promoting  the  cause  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  declares,  in  the  most 
emphatic  terms,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  book, 
which,  when  fairly  and  honestly  interpreted,  can 
serve  the  cause  of  faction  or  schism.  He  also  says, 
"I  believe  there  arc  many  things  in  it  which,  if  Dr. 
Stillingfleet  were  to  write  now,  he  would  not  have 
said,  for  there  are  some  which  show  his  youth  and 
want  of  due  consideration,  and  others  which  he 

*  Neal,  IV.  350,  with  his  usual  inaccuracy,  says  "  1661," 
but  the  life  of  Stillingfleet  prefixed  to  the  folio  edition  of  his 
works,  1707,  says,  "  1659." 

t  Neal,  IV.  353. 


NOT   GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  71 

yielded  too  far,  in  hopes  of  gaining  the  dissenting 
parties  to  the  Church."* 

HIS  MATURER  JUDGMENT. 

•  In  that  discourse  he  says :  "  There  is  as  great 
reason  to  believe  the  apostolical  succession  [in  the 
line  of  Bishops,]  to  be  of  divine  institution,  as  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  or  the  observation  of  the  LORD'S 
Day."f  But  this  youthful  book,  thus  publicly  re- 
canted by  the  maturer  judgment  of  manhood,  is  our 
author's  favorite  witness.  The  usual  answer  to 
this  is,  that  when  Stillingfleet  was  made  a  bishop, 
he  changed  his  mind.  But  this,  beside  being  un- 
worthy of  the  man,  is  untrue,  as  he  was  not  elected 
bishop  until  1689. 

OUR  AUTHOR'S  MISREPRESENTATION  OF  HIM. 

But  leaving  these  circumstances  out  of  considera- 
tion, we  proceed  to  consider  so  much  of  the  evidence 
as  is  at  all  pertinent  to  the  point  at  issue.  Mr.  Hall 
represents  Stillingfleet  as  saying,  that  several  di- 

*  Life,  I.  3.  Stillingfleet  had  said  two  years  before,  (1683,) 
in  the  preface  to  this  his  Unreasonableness  of  Separation, 
"  If  any  thing  in  the  following  treatise  be  found  different  from 
that  book,  [Irenicum,]  I  entreat  them  to  allow  me  that, 
which  I  heartily  wish  to  them,  that  in  twenty  years  time, 
we  may  arrive  to  such  maturity  of  thoughts,  as  to  see  reason 
to  change  our  opinion  of  some  things,  and  I  wish  I  had  not 
cause  to  add,  of  some  persons." 

t  See  Bow.  Lett.  I.  941. 


72  PURITAM8M 

vines  were  called  together  by  the  King's  "  special 
order;"  that  certain  questions  were  propounded  to 
all,  in  answer  to  which,  each  gave  his  opinion  in 
writing,  and  that  "  when  all  was  agreed  upon,  the 
result  was  recorded  in  Crammer's  ami  hand."  (pp. 
46,  47.)  He  tells  us  however,  that  he  can  give  us 
only  a  part,  and  refers  "  those  who  would  see  it  in  its 
whole  extent,  to  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  where  it  is 
to  be  found."  (p.  47.)  Now  the  whole  of  this  descrip- 
tion betrays  an  ignorance  of  the  facts,  which  can  only 
be  accounted  for,  by  supposing  our  author  had  nev- 
er seen  the  Irenicum,  but  quoted  second-hand,  from 
some  untrust- worthy  authority.  For,  first,  Stilling- 
fleet  does  not  profess  to  give  the  conclusions  which 
had  been  "agreed  upon,"  but  only  Crammer's  own 
answers,  except  to  a  single  question,  of  which  our 
author  has  taken  no  notice.  And  second,  he  does 
not  pretend  to  give  the  "  whole  extent"  even  of  Cran- 
mer's  answers,  but  only  a  part  of  the  answers  to  a 
single  set  of  questions.  And  third,  what  is  given 
as  the  answer  to  the  fourteenth  question,  was  the 
answer  to  the  thirteenth.  *  The  substance  of  these 
answers,  is,  that  Bishops  and  Priests  were  original- 
ly the  same — that  they  might  be  made  by  each  oth- 
er, or  the  people,  or  by  the  sovereign — that  no  con- 
secration was  necessary,  election  or  appointing  be- 
ing  sufficient.  But  this  was  the  solitary  opinion  of 

*  Irenicum,  in  Works,  fol.  1707.  II.  397—400. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  73 

Cranmer,  who  in  his  early  life  had  some  singular 
notions ;  in  this  respect,  not  a  single  Bishop  or 
Doctor  agreeing  with  him.  But  had  they  all  agreed 
with  him,  it  would  have  proved  nothing  concerning 
the  judgment  of  the  Church,  as  it  all  took  place  be- 
fore the  Ordinal  was  published,  even  according  to 
the  account  of  the  Irenicum. 

STILLINGFLEET'S  OWN  MISTAKES. 

But  there  is  another  circumstance  connected  with 
these  papers,  which  goes  to  show  "the  youth  and 
want  of  due  consideration"  of  the  author.  When 
the  History  of  the  Reformation  came  to  be  carefully 
investigated  by  Burnett,  he  found  that  the  manu- 
script which  Stillingfleet  used,  and  which  is  without 
date,  belonged  not  to  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  as  he 
supposed,  but  to  that  of  Henry  VIII. ;  that  its  true 
date  was  1540,  and  not  1549  ;  that  it  was  the  opin- 
ion of  these  men  as  Romanists,  and  not  as  Reform- 
ers ;  that  it  was  one  of  the  papers  on  which  the 
Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man  was  based.*  And  it  is 

*  Comp.  Iren.  (Works  Still.)  II.  397—400.  Burn.  Hist. 
Ref.  Vol.  I.  Part  i.  p.  373.  Part  ii.  p.  256.  Col.  No.  21. 
Vol.  II.  Part  i.  pp.  61,  62,  81.  Part  ii.  p.  141.  No.  16, 
p.  160.  No.  25.  The  author  of  The  Puritans  and  their 
Principles  will  now  be  able  to  understand  why  the  author  of 
the  Primitive  Church  said  that  the  Erudition  of  a  Christian 
Man,  published  in  1540,  was  the  last  public  document  of  the 
Reformers  which  taught  the  original  parity  of  Bishops  and 
Presbyters. 


74  PURITANISM 

a  feet  worthy  of  notice,  that  in  four  years  after  the 
publication  of  the  first  volume  of  the  History  of  the 
Reformation  in  1679,  Stillingfleet  publicly  recanted 
the  opinions  expressed  in  the  Ircnicnm.  All  the 
evidence  quoted  by  our  author  from  the  Irenicum, 
or  given  in  the  Irenicum  itself,  is  that  of  a  few  soli- 
tary individuals,  not  among  the  list  of  Reformers, 
against  the  solemn  decision,  and  uniform  practice 
of  the  Church,  and  can  weigh  nothing  in  determin- 
ing their  opinions  and  judgment. 

A  MISTAKE  OF    BURNETT. 

But  even  Burnett's  account  of  this  matter  does 
not  do  Cranmer  full  justice.  The  answers  which 
Cranmer  gave  in,  first,  contained  the  singular 
opinions  already  mentioned.  But  at  some  period 
during  the  discussion,  Cranmer  was  led  to  change 
his  opinion,  and  to  subscribe  the  answers  of  Dr. 
Leighton,  to  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  questions,  in 
which  it  is  asserted,  that  Bishops  might  make  Priests, 
though  they  ought  not  to  do  it  without  the  King's  li- 
cence, if  a  Christian  country  ;  that  they  knew  of 
no  example,  nor  any  authority  of  Scripture  for  any 
other  course,  and  that  consecration  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands  was  required  by  the  example  of  the 
Apostles.*  Cranmer's  subscriptions  to  these  an- 
swers, were  inadvertently  omitted  by  Burnett  in 

•  Bur.  vol.  I.  par.  ii. ;   Rec.  No.  21;  Durell's  Vind.  I.  289 
>n  Chand.  Appeal  Defended,  27. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  75 

printing  this  paper,  a  fact  which  entirely  changes 
the  complexion  of  affairs  in  regard  to  Cranmer's 
opinion.  .  * 

POINTS  OF  AGREEMENT  WITH  THE  REFORMERS. 

But  our  author  is  not  content  with  charging  us 
with  having  departed  from  the  principles  of  the  En- 
glish Reformers,  he  goes  on  to  say  that  the  Reforma- 
tion was  not  carried  far  enough  in  England  ;  not  so 
far,  even,  as  the  Reformers  themselves  would  have 
carried  it,  had  they  been  permitted.  Puritanism,  of 
course,  is  the  carrying  out  of  that  Reformation. 
Some  of  these  points  have  been  considered  already. 
We  have  already  seen,  that  the  Reformers,  Conti- 
nental as  well  as  English,  agreed  in  regard  to  the 
nature  of  the  Church  and  its  office,  the  nature,  au- 
thority, and  character  of  the  ministry,  though  not  as 
to  its  orders, — baptismal  regeneration,  the  real  pres- 
ence, the  authority  of  the  Bible  and  tradition,  though 
most  of  their  descendants  have,  until  recently,  depart- 
ed from  them  all.  Consequently  the  great  question 
with  our  author  is,  whether  the  ministry  should  be 
perpetuated  in  three  orders,  or  in  one  order.  The 
Church  of  England  decided  in  favor  of  three,  and  re- 
tained the  Apostolical  succession.  The  Church  in 
Sweden  did  the  same.  The  Church  in  Denmark 
retained  the  three  orders,  but  has  probably  lost  the 
succession.  In  Germany,  Switzerland,  France,  and 


76  PURITANISM 

Holland,  one  order  only  has  been  retained.  The 
question  has  been  so  often,  and  so  thoroughly  dim- 
cussed  of  late,  in  regard  to  the  ministry,  that  we 
shall  not  enter  at  all  into  the  argument  at  present. 
Those  who  wish  to  examine  it,  will  find  books  ready 
at  hand,  adapted  to  all  their  wants. 

DISAGREEMENT  OF  CONTINENTAL    REFORMERS. 

In  regard  to  other  doctrines,  our  author  should 
have  told  us,  who  he  would  have  had  us  follow; 
which  of  the  Continental  Reformers,  he  would  have 
had  the  Church  of  England  taken  for  its  standard  : — 
whether  we  should  assert  the  ubiquity  of  CHRIST'S 
glorified  body,  with  Luther,*  or  deny  it  with  Calvin  ;f 
whether  we  should  hold  that  the  elements  in  the  Eu- 
charist contain,  and  thus  convey  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  CHRIST,  with  Luther,  $  or  that  they  represent,  but 
do  not  convey  them,  with  Calvin,  §  or,  that  to  the 
faithful,  they  convey,  without  containing  them,  with 
Melancthon,  and  Bucer,  and  Peter  Martyn ;  || 

*  Muensch.  Dog.  Hist.  Per.  III.  par.  ii.  §  202. 

t  Inst.  IV.  xvii.  30. 

{  Muensch.  Ib.  198. 

$  Muensch.  Ib.  198. 

||  Mosheim  says  Melancthon  "  agreed  with  Luther  in  re- 
gard to  the  LORD'S  Supper,  though  he  says  he  wished  to  use 
ambiguous  terms  and  phrases  in  regard  to  it."  III.  165. 
But  Bucer,  son-in-law  of  Melancthon,  affirms  the  contrary- 
Bayle  IV.  190.  The  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  seemed  to 
Bucer  to  attribute  too  much  [corporeal]  reality  to  the  presence 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  77 

whether  we  should  hold  to  unconditional  election, 
with  Calvin,  *  or  deny  it  with  Luther ;  f  whether 
we  should  hold  to  universal  redemption,  with  Luther,^: 
or  deny  it  with  Calvin ;  §  whether  we  should  pro- 
fess our  faith  in  "  one  holy  Catholic  Church,"  with 
Calvin; ||  or,  in  "one  Christian  Church, "IT  with  Lu- 
ther ;  or  whether  in  the  various  points  of  difference, 
we  should  reject  both,  and  follow  the  teachings  of 
Zuingle.** 

»          .  •    ' ; 

of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  he  could  not 
digest  the  consequence  of  it ;  but  he  thought  also,  that 
the  opinion  of  Zuingle  was  too  narrow,  and  did  not  come 
up  to  the  ideas  which  the  Scriptures  and  ancient  tradition 
imprint  on  our  minds."  Bayle  II.  177.  Bucer  also,  as 
well  as  his  master,  Melancthon,  was  charged  by  the  Calvin- 
ists  of  employing  "  ambiguous  and  obscure  phrases  in  regard 
to  it."  J.  Simber,  cited  by  Hetta— Bayle  II.  177.  "  Peter 
Martyn,  conformed  himself  for  some  time  to  Bucer's  lan- 
guage," and  while  "  in  England  was  exhorted  [by  Calvin]  to 
speak  more  fully  and  clearly  concerning  the  Eucharist." — 
Bayle  11.178.  These  men  were  for  taking  ground, interme- 
diate between  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  and  hence  nei- 
ther party  could  understand  them. 

*  Inst.  III.  xxi.     §  5,  7.  xxv.  12,  14. 

t  Moeh.  III.  212. 

t  Augs.  Conf.  Art.  III. 

§  Inst.  III.  xxi — xxv. 

||  Inst.  IV.  i.  2. 

\Short  Cat.  Sec.  II.  Ans.  3.  "  Eine  heilige  Christliche 
Kirche."  This  is  adopted  even  in  Sweden.  Wingard,  143. 

**  One  cannot  avoid  smiling  at  the  manner  in  which  the 


78  PURITANISM 

LUTHERAN    RITES  AND  CEREMONIES. 

But  his  remarks  on  this  point,  seem  to  refer 
rather  to  rites  and  ceremonies  than  to  doctrines,  for 
he  says  that  the  English  Reformers  "  were  by  no 
means  of  the  opinion  of  some  at  the  present  day,  that 
all  was  done,  which  a  regard  for  purity  in  worship 
demanded."  (p.  54.)  Perhaps  he  would  have  these 
things  conformed  to  the  Lutheran  pattern,  and 
would  have  us  restore  the  high  altar,  and  wear  the 
embroidered  surplice,  burn  lights  upon  the  altar  in 
the  communion,  use  the  wafer  in  its  administration,* 
make  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  consecrating  the  el- 
ements,  as  well  as  in  baptism,  have  the  cross  on  the 
outside,  and  in  the  inside  of  the  Churches,  the  cru- 
cifix on  the  altar,  chant  the  Liturgy,  pray  with  the 
back  to  the  people,  and  bow-  at  the  name  of  JESUS, 
whenever  it  occurs ;  practices  which  prevail  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree  in  all  the  Lutheran  Churches 
to  the  present  day.f 

names  of  such  "  Reformers  as  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Zuingle" 
are  associated  by  the  New  Englander,  II.  232,  as  though 
they  all  taught  the  same  doctrine. 

*  This  was  done  in  Geneva  for  a  long  time^Mas.  Vind.  by 
Linds.  505.  It  was  abolished  in  1623.  Spon.  Hist.  Gen.  373. 
in  Bayle  III.  343. 

t  Hoppu's  Sketches,  74,  118.  Jarvis'  No  Unioii  with 
Rome,  13,  21.  Pusey  Germ.  Theol.  II.  402. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  79 

OBJECTIONS    TO     THE     ENGLISH   REFORMATION    (1.) 
THE    WORK    OF    THE    STATE. 

But  the  greatest  objection  of  all,  against  the  Eng- 
lish Reformation,  seems  to  be,  that  it  was  the  work 
of  the  "  State  and  not  the  Church."  (pp.  54—62.) 
The  articles  he  confesses  were  "  such  as  the  Reform- 
ers would  have  them,"  (p.  58,)  but  the  "  Liturgy" 
and  "  offices"  were  the  work  of  "  the  State,"  (pp. 
58,  62,)  and  only  "  so  left  by  the  Reformers  for  the 
present,  with  the  hope  of  further  amendment  when 
the  time  would  allow  it."  (p.  58.)  These  objections, 
in  the  mouth  of  a  Romanist,  might  have  some  sem- 
blance of  intelligent  sincerity ;  but  in  an  avowed 
champion  of  the  Reformation,  they  sound  strangely 
enough ;  for,  if  the  English  Reformation  is  to  be 
censured,  because  the  State  took  an  active  part 
therein,  the  German  and  Swiss  must  also  be  placed 
under  the  ban.  Luther  gave  himself  very  little 
concern  with  any  thing  but  doctrine,  and  it  was  not 
until  the  accession  of  John  of  Saxony,  1525,  that 
any  decided  measures  were  taken  to  organize  a  dis- 
tinct Church.  A  confession  of  faith  was  drawn  up 
by  Luther  and  Melancthon,  at  the  request  of  the 
Prince,  and  presented  to  the  Diet  at  Augsburgh, 
1530,  by  the  Prince  and  Duke  of  Saxony,  the  Earl 
of  Bradenburg,  the  Duke  of  Lunenburg,  the  Land- 
grave of  Hesse,  the  Prince  of  Anhalt,  the  Senates 
of  Nuremburgh,  and  Reutlingcn, — together  with  a 


80  PURITANISM 

list  of  "  the  corruptions  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
corrected  by  the  Reformers."*  The  same  interposi- 
tion of  the  civil  authorities  was  also  practiced  in 
Geneva,f  Denmark,  and  Sweden.:}: 

GRADUAL     IN     ITS     CHARACTER  ;     DIFFERENCE      OF 
THE    ENGLISH    AND     CONTINENTAL. 

Another  fact  which  our  author  appears  to  con- 
sider a  serious  objection  to  the  English  Reformation 
was  the  gradual  and  cautious  manner  in  which  it 
was  conducted.  And  here  it  must  be  confessed,  that 
the  English  and  Continental  Reformations  were  con- 
ducted on  totally  different  principles.  The  English 
Reformation  was  characterized  at  every  step,  by  the 
deliberation  and  inquiry,  which  should  precede  any 
change.  It  was  the  gradual  dawn  of  the  morning 
light  upon  those  who  had  long  been  groping  in  dark- 
ness, but  were  anxiously  looking  out  for  the  coming 
day.  It  was  the  result  of  prayerful  study,  and  careful 
research.  Nothing  was  conceded  to  passion — nothing 
left  to  chance — nothing  rejected  that  could  claim  the 
sanction  of  the  Bible  and  primitive  antiquity — no- 
thing retained  but  what  might;, and  nothing  done,  but 

*  See  App.  to  Am.  Ed.  of  Burnett,  on  XXIX  Articles, 
N.  Y.  1842,  or  Schmilcker's  "  Elements  of  Popular  Theol." 
&c.  And.  1843.  But  the  work  of  Dr.  S.  does  not  contain 
the  entire  confession. 

t  Beza's  Life  of  Calvin. 

t  Mosheim,  B.  IV.  Cent.  XVI.  §  1,  v.  4. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTEST ANTISM.  81 

as  the  laws  of  the  Church  Catholic  directed.*  On 
the  contrary,  Luther  was  the  creature  of  circum- 
stances. He  believed  that  he  was  fighting  the 
LORD'S  battles,  and  he  left  the  whole  direction  of 
external  matters  to  the  hand  of  an  overruling  Provi- 
dence.  Deeming  himself  the  mere  instrument  of  a 
higher  power,  he  took  no  precaution  to  prevent  the 
evils  that  might  result  from  his  own  indiscreet  or 
misguided  actions.f  Consequently  his  views  were 

*  Prim.  Church,  401,  and  Bur.  I.  372.  Ogilby's  Lec- 
tures on  the  Church,  133—208. 

t  No  one  can  read  Scott's  Life  of  Luther,  but  especially 
D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation,  without  feeling 
this  fact  in  regard  to  Luther,  continually.  Having  alluded 
to  the  history  of  D'Aubigne,  it  seems  to  -be  incumbent  on  us 
to  mention  certain  circumstances  relative  to  that  work, 
which  materially  detract  from  its  authority.  We  say  nothing 
of  the  fact,  that  being  a  strict  Calvinist,  the  author  could 
hardly  be  expected  to  enter  fully  into  the  views  and  feelings 
of  Lather ;  but  we  allude  to  the  doubtfulness  of  the  claim 
set  up  in  the  preface  of  the  book,  to  originality.  The  au- 
thor says :_ "  this  history  has  been  drawn  from  original  sour- 
ces, with  which  a  long  residence>  in  Germany,  the  Low  Counj 
tries  and  Switzerland,  has  made  me  familiar.  Down  to  this 
time  we  possess  no  history  of  that  remarkable  period."  The 
impression  which  this  language  will  naturally  convey  to  eve- 
ry reader  is  entirely  erroneous ;  for  it  could  only  be  true  of 
the  French,  (if  of  them,)  that  they  had  no  such  history ;  and 
by  "  original  sources,"  he  can  mean  no  more  than  German 
histories,  for  a  learned  German  tells  us  that  it  is,  "  in  its  main 
parts,  a  skillful  working  up  of  German  material,  especially 


82  PURITANISM 

always  more  or  loss  one-sided.  Taking  his  stand 
"in  the  element  of  GOD'S  umrrittcn  word,  and  ani- 
mated by  the  one  all  regulating  principle  of  justifi- 
cation, he  uttered  his  judgment  against  certain  parts 
of  the  Canon  [of  Scripture,  the  Epistle  of  St.  James, 
and  that  to  the  Hebrews,]  because  they  seemed  to  him 
to  be  in  conflict  with  that  [unwritten]  word," — "not 
being  able  to  find  in  them,  his  cardinal  tnith,  justifi- 
cation by  faith  only."*  That  one  idea  was  the  all 
in  all  with  him,  and  had  it  not  been  for  the  interven- 
tion of  the  State,  and  the  labors  of  his  friends,  Lu- 
theranism  would  either  have  had  no  being  at  all,  or 
have  presented  a  very  different  character  and  aspect, 
from  what  it  has  hitherto  done. 

It  was  the  game  one-sided  view  of  things  that 
led  Luther  to  say:  "could  I,  with  the  writings  of 
Moses,  the  Psalms,  Isaiah,  have  also  the  same  Spi- 
rit, I  could  then  make  a  New  Testament  as  well  as 
the  Apostles  who  wrote  it."f  It  was  the  same  view 
which  led  him,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Papacy, 
to  rest  every  thing  in  the  Christian  ministry  upon 

the  History  of  the  Reformation,  by  Marheinecke,  which 
still  remains  superior  to  it  in  the  estimation  of  all  competent 
judge*."  Schaf.  166.  And  Dr.  S.  adds,  "We  have  been 
really  surprised  to  see  how  Dr.  Merle  [D'Aubignr]  allows 
himself  to  plunder  German  authors ;"  which  charge  he  sus- 
*vns  by  other  proofs. 

Schaf.  55. 

Pusey,  II.  C7,  on  authority  of  Iirt(:'chneidcr. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  83 

"  internal  ordination,"  a  doctrine  which,  later  in 
life,. he  abandoned.* 

Hence, 'also,  the  seeming  inconsistencies  in  his 
life  and  writings.  One  point  was  pushed  to  the  ex- 
treme, regardless  of  its  bearing  upon  another,  until 
he  found  his  own  arguments  turned  against  himself, 
by  those  who  wished  to  pull  down  what  he  was 
building  up.f  And  the  history  and  character  of  the 
two  Churches,  have  been  as  different  as  the  means 
of  their  Reformation  were  dissimilar. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  EITUAL. 

And  here  it  is  proper  to  mention  another  distin- 
guishing feature  of  the  English  Reformation.  We 
mean  the  care  taken  in  developing  the  ritual  as  well 
as  in  settling  the  doctrinal  of  religion.  All  the  Re- 
formers agreed,  in  making  doctrine  the  basis  of  their 
system.:}:  But  while  Luther  left  the  ritual  to  devel- 
ope  itself,  as '  circumstances  might  call  it  forth,  the 
English  Reformers  acted  upon  the  principle  that  it 
should  be  developed  by  the  Church,  as  well  as  in  the 
Church.  Hence,  the  ritual  was  labored  with  the 
same  care  as  the  doctrinal,  and  the  result  was,  a  sys- 
tem that  has  no  equal  for  its  purity  of  doctrine  and 

*  Authorities  quoted  in  Moeh.  Synb.  392,  393. 
t  This  was  especially  true  in  regard  to  the  Church  and  the 
ministry,  ^^j?^ 

t  Views  Gospel  Truth,  91—97. 


84  PURITANISM 

propriety  of  worship  ;  a  system  that  has  endeared  it- 
self to  all  her  children,  by  its  adaptation  to  the  wants 
of  their  spiritual  nature,  and  commanded  the  homage 
of  the  good  and  the  great,  of  every  name  and  nation, 
for  its  simplicity,  propriety,  and  beauty.  And  it  is 
no  doubt  owing,  under  GOD,  to  this  close  correspon- 
dence of  principle  and  development— of  doctrine  and 
ritual — that  both  have  been  preserved  in  so  much  in- 
tegrity and  purity,  while  the  other  reformed  bodies 
have  so  sadly  departed  from  one  or  both.* 

The  English  Reformers  agreed,  therefore,  with 
the  Continental,  in  regarding  the  doctrinal  of  reli- 
gion as  the  basis  of  their  system — in  asserting  man's 
utter  inability,  since  the  fall,  to  do  any  thing  by  which 
to  prepare  himself  for  repentance  and  faith  ;  and  the 
necessity,  therefore,  of  his  "  gratuitous  justification 
for  CHRIST'S  sake,  through  faith,"f  in  making  the 
Bible  the  only  sure  fountain  and  certain  measure  of 
divine  truth,  in  receiving  that  sense  of  it,  which  had 
been  apprehended  and  settled  by  the  Church,  and  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  the  Church,  the  divine  ap- 

*  The  Church  in  Sweden  must  be  excepted  from  this  re- 
mark, which,  though  strictly  Lutheran  in  doctrine,  is  Episco- 
pal both  in  form  and  fact ;  and  which  has  suffered  no  serious 
inroad  from  the  Rationalism  of  her  German  neighbors.  Abp. 
Wingard's  Church  of  Christ,  205.  Denmark,  which  is  Epis- 
copal in  form  but  not  in  fact,  has  been  very  deeply  imbued 
with  Rationalistic  principles.  Wing.  196.  ^ 

t  This  is  the  language  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Art.  4. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  85 

pointment  of  the  ministry,  the  nature  and  design  of 
the  Sacraments.     But  they  differed  from  the  Conti 
nental,  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  the  conse- 
quences of  the  fall  were  effected — as  to  the  manner 
and  consequence  of  man's  renewal — as  to  the  orders 
by  which  the  ministry  should  be  perpetuated — as  to 
the  connection  between  the  doctrinal  and  ritual  o 
religion,  and  the  importance  of  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  the  same.     The  English  Reformation  also 
differed  from  the  Continental,  in  the  means  by  which 
it  was  effected,  and  the  manner  of  its  accomplish- 
ment,* and  consequently  has  been  widely  different 
from  the  others,  both  in  its  character  and  results. 

ITS    CANONICAL    CHARACTER. 

There  is  another  circumstance  connected  with 
the  English  Reformation,  which  our  author  affects  to 
treat  with  contempt,  but  which,  nevertheless,  is  de- 
serving  of  careful  consideration.  The  author  of  the 
"  Primitive  Church,"  had  attempted  to  show,  (c.  29,) 
that  the  English  Reformation  was  Canonical,  inas- 
much as  no  change  was  made,  either  in  doctrine  or 
discipline,  without  the  consent  of  clergy  and  laity, 
according  to  the  requirements  of  the  law  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  while  the  retrogression  made  by 
Mary,  was  uncanonical,  being  done  in  violation  of 
those  Canons.  But,  without  any  attempt  at  disprov- 

*  Sweden  is  an  exception ;  Denmark  partially  so. 


86  PUBITAXISM 

ing  the  facts  or  principles  there  stated,  our  author 
sneers  at  the  idea  of  a  Canonical  Reformation  under 
Edward  and  Elizabeth,  and  in  the  same  breath  as- 
serts, that  "  Mary  too,  made  a  Canonical  Reforma- 
tion, when  she  carried  the  Reformation  back  to 
Rome."  (pp.  272 — 274.)  The  most  favorable  con- 
struction  which  charity  can  put  upon  this  conduct,  is, 
to  suppose  him  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"  Canonical,"  as  used  by  historians  and  Canonists. 
But  however  much  Puritanism  may  affect  to  despise 
this  feature  of  the  English  Reformation,  no  man  can 
disregard  it,  who  enters  into  the  views  of  the  Re- 
formers themselves,  Continental  as  well  as  English, 
in  regard  to  the  Church.  No  right-minded  man 
will  be  willing,  for  any  slight  cause,  to  break  away 
from  the  life  of  the  Church,  and  cast  himself,  a  lone 
and  withered  branch,  upon  the  bleak  and  barren  hills 
of  sin  and  death.  And  no  man  who  understands 
the  history  of  the  Church,  will  think  lightly  of  a 
"  Canonical  Reformation." 

PURITANISM    HAS    CHANGED,    NOT    WE. 

This  brief  survey  of  the  Reformation,  is  sufficient 
to  demonstrate  that  on  all  the  points  upon  which  we 
are  charged  with  having  departed  from  the  faith  of 
the  Reformers,  it  is  Puritanism  that  has  changed, 
and  not  we  ;  that  all  those  points  of  doctrine  which 
were  held  in  common  at  that  time,  are  held  by  us 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  87 

now,  and  that  the  discipline  of  which  our  author 
complains,  is,  by  his  own  confession,  a  faithful  and 
honest  carrying  out  of  the  principles  which  the  Re- 
formers established.*  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  no 
less  evident,  that  while  Puritanism  has  retained 
substantially  the  same  form  of  discipline  as  that  es- 
tablished by  the  Genevan  Reformers,  it  has  departed 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  until  it  has 
scarcely  a  point  in  common  with  the  Protestantism 
of  the  Reformers  themselves.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, no  one  can  hesitate  to  say,  that  Puritanism 
is  not  geunine  Protestantism. 

BOASTS    OF   HAVING    CHANGED. 

Indeed  in  the  same  breath  in  which  Puritanism 
charges  us  with  having  departed  from  the  principles 

*  We  do  not  say,  the  "principles  of  the  Reformers," 
but,  "the  principles  which  the  Reformers  established;" 
for,  our  author  holds  that  the  public  documents  set  forth 
by  those  men,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  XXXIX  Ar- 
ticles, do  not  express  their  sentiments,  nor  set  forth  their 
principles.  Our  author's  account  of  the  origin  of  our  Prayer- 
Book,  is  a  real  curiosity.  He  tells  us,  that  "the  offices  of 
the  Prayer-Book,  (p.  58,)  all  but  the  Articles,  were  "framed 
from  the  old  Mass  books,"  (p.  60,)  by  "  the  State,  and  not 
the  Church,"  (p.  62,)  for  the  express  purpose  of  "  keeping 
Papists  in  the  Church,"  (pp.  58,  78.)  Hence  he  says, 
"  its  origin  was  neither  divine  nor  ecclesiastical,"  (p.  62 ;) 
and  he  adopts  the  language  of  another,  who  said,  "  It  was 
but  an  ill-mumbled  mass,"  (p.  58.)  Any  other  feeling  than 
that  of  pity  towards  such  a  man,  is  impossible. 


88  PURITANISM 

of  the  Reformers,  it  boasts  of  doing  the  same  thing 
itself.  Thus  our  author,  speaking  of  Wickliffe,  says ; 
"With  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  and  taking  that  alone 
for  his  guide,  he  advanced  further  into  the  field  of 
Apostolic  truth  and  order,  than  Luther  and  his  im- 
mediate coadjutors.  He  reached  hold  on  results, 
which  after  a  lapse  of  centuries,  and  after  an  age  of 
suffering  and  research,  the  Providence  of  GOD  un- 
folded once  more  to  the  eyes  of  the  Puritans."  (p. 
29.)  And  the  New  Englander,  the  avowed  and  ac- 
knowledged organ  of  the  latest  form  of  New  Cal- 
vanistic  Puritanism,  said  in  1844  :  "  Notwithstand- 
ing their  [the  Reformers']  wisdom  and  piety  and 
zeal,  there  was  some  serious  defects  in  their  man- 
ner of  conducting  the  controversy  of  their  age 

We  can  conduct  the  Reformation  of  our  times  to  an 
issue  more  glorious  and  enduring  than  was  even 
ant'cipated  by  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury."* With  two  years  more  of  development  and 
it  says  :  "  The  great  battle  fur  religious  liberty  is 
yet  to  be  fought.  The  idea  of  religious  liberty — 
which  is  yet  to  be  the  great  idea  of  our  age — has 
yet  been  but  slowly  developed.  The  Reformers 
did  not  possess  it.  Even  the  Puritans  did  not  ftilly 
grasp  it,  if  we  except  him  who  does  not  need  a  statue, 
because  he  would  not  wear  a  crown ;  whose  truest, 


•  New  Eng.  II.  232. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  89 

noblest  title  is  TI*E  MAN, — Oliver  Cromwell."* 
And  yet  for  us  to  doubt  the  perfection  of  that  work, 

*  New  Eng.  IV.  418.  This  application  of  that  name 
to  Cromwell,  which  has  been  applied  to  CHRIST  alone,  and 
which  is  true  of  him  alone,  is  in  good  keeping  with  ova 
author's  appropriation  of  the  epithet  of  "  the'  Great  Repub- 
lican," applied  to  our  LORD  by  the  infidel  De  La  Mennais. 
If  this  be  not  the'  spirit  of  Rationalism,  it  is  the  spirit  of  infi- 
delity. 

The  history  of  Puritanism  it  is  not  now  our  present  pur- 
pose to  consider ;  but  we  cannot  forbear  an  apt  quotation 
from  a  learned  and  impartial  writer — neither  Puritan  nor 
Churchman ;  we  quote  from  a  Discourse  delivered '  before 
the  Historical  Society  of  Philadelphia,  Feb.  21,  1842, 
by  Job  R.  Tyson,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Vice -Presidents.  He 
says, — "  Cromwell,  who,  with  many  points  of  greatness, 
was  an  usurper  and  a  tyrant — not  satisfied  with  an  untin- 
selled  Protectorate,  sighed  for  the  pomp  and  glitter  of  a 

regal  sceptre Subsequent  events  prove, 

that  the  voice  of  the  people  was  as  elFectually  drowned  by 
the  din  of  arms,  when  Cromwell  rose  to  the  supreme  power, 
as  that  of  justice  had  been  stopped,  in  the  solemn  mockery 
of  the  monarch's  trial." — p.  17. 

We  add  another  extract,  from  a  stanch  Puritan,  relating 
to  the  same  period — the  late  NOAH  WEBSTER,  ESQ.,  LL.D^ 
"  To  be  a  tyrant  with  any  tolerable  degree  of  safety,  a  man 
must  be  possessed  of  the  confidence  of  the  people.  Charles  I. 
of  England,  extended  the  royal  prerogative  to  an  unwarrant- 
able length — and  lost  his  head ;  but  that  prince  could  not 
have  sent  a  detachment  of  three  hundred  men,  to  drive  the 
Commons  of  England  from  their  hall,  and  have  effected  his 
purpose.  That  act  of  despotism  was  reserved  for  the  repub- 
5* 


90 

is  to  abandon  all  truth,  to  become  semi-papists  at 
once.     Proh  pudor  ! 

OUR  AUTHOR'S  VIEW  OF  ANTIQUITY,  (l.)  IREX,EUS. 

After  the  specimens  we  have  had,  of  our  author's 
intelligence  and  candor,  it  can  hardly  be  necessary 
for  us  to  add  more.  But  as  he  has  attempted  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  of  the  Church  on  the  ground  of 
antiquity,  it  s,eems  to  be  proper  to  examine  his 
qualifications  for  the  task,  as  exhibited  in  the  work 
before  us.  His  first  attempt  is  on  p.  275,  where 
this  passage  occurs,  as  his  first  quotation  from  the 
Fathers  of  the  "second  and  third  centuries  ;"  given 
to  show  how  far  they  had  departed  already  from  his 
draught  of  the  Apostolic  model.  "  Thus  Irenaeus 
says,  '  Wheresoever  the  Bishop  shall  appear,  there 
also  let  the  people  be.'"  There  is  no  reference  to 
the  place  where  this  language  occurs,  and  we  can 
find  no  such  passage  in  Irenaeus  ;  though  there  is 
just  such  a  passage  in  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius  to  the 
Srnyrneans,  c.  8.  Again  on  the  same  page,  we 
find  his  second  quotation  reading  thus  : — "  The 
same  Father  says,  '  See  that  ye  follow  your  Bishop, 
even  as  GOD  the  Father! ' '  Nor  is  there  any  refer- 
ence to  the  place  where  this  occurs,  nor  can  we  find 
any  such  passage  as  this  in  Ircnaeus  ;  though  there 

lican  Cromwell — the  friend  of  the  people  .'" — Oral.  4th  July, 
1802,  p.  23. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  91 

is  one  in  Ignatius  which  seems  to  have  been  the 
original.  It  oceurs  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
(c.  6,)  out  of  which  it  was  manufactured,  and 
reads  thus :  "  See  that  ye  follow  your  Bishop,  as 
JESUS  CHRIST  the  Father."  The  original,  there- 
fore, is  an  exhortation  to  follow  the  Bishop  as 
CHRIST  followed  the  Father,  not  to  follow  the 
Bishop  as  though  he  were  GOD.  Then  follow  two 
genuine  quotations  from  Ignatius,  properly  ascribed 
to  him,  placed  there  apparently  with  the  supposition 
that  Irenaeus  preceded  Ignatius.  And  this  is  ren- 
dered probable,  by  the  fact,  that  on  p.  339,  he 
says  that  Ignatius  "  comes  too  late  by  a  whole  hun- 
dred years"  to  testify  of  the  primitive  Church.  We 
could  hardly  conceive  of  a  writer  of  Mr.  Hall's 
apparent  reading,  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  that 
Ignatius  was  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  that  he  was 
for  many  years  cotemporary  with  him,  and  died  only 
seven  years  after  that  Apostle.  Nor  can  we  imagine 
how  he  came  to  put  the  language  of  Ignatius  into 
the  mouth  of  Irenseus,  nor  how  he  could  make  such 
an  egregious  blunder,  as  to  enthrone  the  Bishop  in 
the  place  of  GOD  ;  unless  he  has  been  led  into  the 
error  by  quoting  second  hand,  from  untrustworthy 
sources.  Indeed,  it  must  be  perfectly  evident,  to 
every  one,  at  all  conversant  with  the  Fathers,  that 
our  author  has  no  personal  acquaintance  with  the 
writings  of  the  primitive  Christians. 


92  POHTAMSM 


(2.)    CLEMENT    OF   HOME. 

Another  example  of  his  acquaintance  with  the 
Fathers  occurs  on  p.  334.  When  speaking  of 
Clement  of  Rome,  he  says,  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  "he  uses  the  words  Pastors  and  Bishops 
repeatedly,  and  throughout  as  synonymous."  What 
he  means  by  "  repeatedly,"  we  know  not,  as  wo 
recollect  no  instance  where  the  word  "Pastor" 
occurs  in  the  Epistle ;  and  the  word  Episcopus, 
(Bishop,)  is  found  only  three  times,  and  that  in  a 
single  sentence.  In  one  instance  it  cannot  signify 
"  Bishop  "  in  the  official  sense,  and  we  have  shown 
in  another  place,  that  there  is  no  probability  he 
intended  to  use  it  so  in  the  other  two  cases.*  He 
then  proceeds  to  quote  the  address  of  the  Epistle, 
and  follows  it  by  the  forty-second  chapter,  as  though 
it  were  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle.  He  also  tells 
us  that  Clement  "  uses  the  words  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byter as  synonymous,"  (p.  325,)  but  he  has  oflercd 
no  proof  of  the  assertion,  and  we  know  of  none  that 
could  be  offered.*!* 

*  Prim.  Church,  226. 

t  On  pp.  336,  337,  our  author  charges  upon  Perceval,  in 
his  work  ou  the  Apostolical  Succession,  with  "  barefaced 
trickery," — with  a  "  piece  of  arrant  fraud," — for  quot:ng  a 
passage  from  Clement  of  Rome,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
High  Priest,  the  Priest,  and  the  Lcvites,  as  indicating  that 


NOT  GENtflNE  PROTESTANTISM.  93 

Our  author  supposes  that  the  work  of  Clement  is 
of  paramount  authority  among  the  Fathers,  because  ; 

there  were  then  three  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry ;  and 
very  charitably  imagines  that  the  author  of  the  "  Primitive 
Church  "  has  "  stumbled  into  this  ditch  dug  by  Perceval ;" 
for  he  "  cannot  for  one  moment  suppose,  that  he  knowingly 
concurs   hi  so  gross  a  piece  of  deception."     But  our  author 
is  too  charitable  in  this  respect,    as  he  is  unjust  in  charging 
the  Primitive  Church   With   omitting   certain   testimony  of 
Clement.     He  can  hardly  be  ignorant  of  what  Beveridge 
said  as  early  as  A.  D.  1 690,  (Cod.  Can.  II.  xi.  9.)  inasmuch 
as  he  tells  us  that  he  has  "  searched  very  extensively  into 
the   standard   writings   of  Prelacy,"    (p.  285.)     After  two 
quotations,  in  which  he  (Beveridge)    thinks  a  distinction  is 
clearly  made  between  the  "  Praepositus  and  Presbyters,"  he 
says:   "  In  another  place  he  intimates  that  the  same  three 
distinct  orders  of  the  sacred  ministry  are  established  in  the 
Christian  Church,  equally  with  the  Jewish."     Then  quoting 
the  passage  in  question,  he  goes  on  to  say :   "  Who  can 
doubt,  that  before  these  words  were  written,  the  distinction 
of  orders  in  the  ministry  had  been  as  certainly  established 
in  the  Christian  ministry,  as  in  the  Jewish."     Nor  ought  he 
to  be  ignorant  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Learning  quotes  the  same 
passage,  in  the  same  way,  for  the  same  purpose  as  Perceval, 
in  a  work  published  in  1766,  (Defence  of  Episcopacy;)   or, 
that  the  same  sense  has  been  given  to  it,  from  that  day  to 
this.     That  there  are  some  difficulties  attending  the  language 
of  Clement,    is  granted :    but  we  cannot  admit  the  Presby- 
terian construction  of  his  language  ;    because,  (1.)  it  sup- 
poses him  to  be  guilty  of  the  absurdity  of  talking  to  the 
Gentile  converts,  as  though  they  were  Jews  ;  (2.)  because  it 
makes  him  guilty  of  misinterpreting  Scripture,  when  nothing 


94  PURITANISM 

"  it  is  not  two  centuries  since  it  was  dug  up  from 
the  dust,  after  having  been  lost  and  unknown  for  a 
thousand  years  ;"*  for  he  supposes  "  that  oblivion 
was  its  protection  from  the  mutilations,  the  changes, 
and  interpolations,  which  were  inextricably  mingled 

is  to  be  gained  by  it ;  and  (3.)  it  makes  him  speak  of  things 
past,  in  the  present  time.  The  hypothesis  of  the  Primitive 
Church  makes  Clement  consistent  with  himself,  and  intelli- 
gible to  others — which  no  other  has  been  able  to  do. 

But,  as  our  author  rejects  the  interpretation  of  the  Primi- 
tive Church,  we  wish  to  inquire  whether  he  believes  Clement 
understood  Is.  Ix.  17,  to  which  he  refers,  as  describing  the 
names  of  offices  in  the  Christian  Church  ?  If  so,  will  he  tell  us 
why  Clement  did  not  quote  the  passage  as  it  reads — not 
substituting  Episcopous,  and  diacouous,  for  archontat,  and 
Episcopog?  According  to  our  interpretation,  Clement 
merely  referred  to  the  passage,  as  proof  of  a  principle,  and 
gave  the  sense,  without  regard  to  the  words.  According  to 
the  Presbyterian  interpretation,  Clement  first  mis-quoted  the 
passage,  and  then  mis-interpreted  it.  Is  this  representation 
of  Clement's  proceeding,  to  be  regarded  as  a  specimen  of 
Puritan  exegesis  ;  for  it  is  only  by  this  double  perversion,  that 
he  can  be  made  a  Puritan  authority  ? 

*  An  accurate  man  would  not  have  spoken  as  Mr.  Hall 
has  done.  The  Epistle  of  Clement  was  certainly  known 
to  Photious,  as  late  as  850,  and  was  published  at  Oxford 
in  1633.  The  two  dates,  it  will  be  seen,  are  not  more  than 
"  a  thousand  years "  apart,  while  the  last  was  more  than 
"  two  hundred  years  ago."  There  are  no  terms  which  a 
Christian  gentleman  may  use,  descriptive  of  our  author's 
mode  of  treating  primitive  antiquity,  especially  on  pp.  253 
—256. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  95 

up  with  such  works  as  monks  and  priests  were  able 
to  lay  their  hands  upon,"  (p,  253.)  One  would  natu- 
rally expect  from  this  account  of  the  matter,  that  the 
Bible,  which  was  in  the  keeping  of  the  "  monks  and 
priests,"  and  who  were  almost  its  sole  copyists,  would 
be  the  most  corrupt  of  all.  But  whatever  this  argu- 
ment proves  for  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  it  proves 
just  the  same  for  the  shorter  Epistles  of  Ignatius, 
which  were  for  a  long  time  in  the  same  predicament. 

(3.)    JUSTIN  MARTYR,  POLYCARP,  IGNATIUS. 

Again,  it  would  be  a  hopeless  task  for  any  one 
to  attempt  to  find  the  language  attributed  to  Justin 
Martyr,  on  p.  338,  and  none  but  those  familiar  with 
the  writings  of  that  Father  could  guess  what  was 
the  original  of  which  the  statement  was  manufac- 
tured. His  remarks  on  Polycarp,*  (p.  338,)  and 
Irenaeus,  (pp.  343,  344,)  are  the  old  Presbyterian 

*  The  assertion  which  our  author  makes  upon  the  probable 
supervision  of  Polycarp,  over  the  Church  at  Philippi,  (p.  338,) 
is  more  than  uncandid.  He  says,  the  author  of  the  Primitive 
Church  "  conjectures"  that  the  Bishop  of  Philippi  is  dead ; 
and  "  conjectures"  that  "  Polycarp  had  been  invited  to  take 
the  provisional  oversight  over  them,  though  no  history  shows 
it,  and  Polycarp  does  not  intimate  any  such  thing."  Yet 
the  whole  argument  of  the  Primitive  Church  actually  turns 
upon  Polycarp's  own  language.  Whatever  Mr.  Hall  might 
think  of  the  strength  of  the  argument,  he  could  not  fairly 
and  honestly  use  the  language  he  has. 


96 

argument,  reasserted  as  though  it  was  entirely  now 
with  him,  and  without  any  notice  of  its  repeated  re- 
filiation.  His  view  of  the  testimony  of  Ignatius, 
(p.  343,)  by  which  he  makes  the  Presbyters,  si/c- 
cessors  of  the  Apostles,  will  be  as  new  to  most  of  his 
readers,  as  it  would  have  been  to  Ignatius  himself;* 

*  The  representation  of  our  author  in  regard  to  the  mode 
suggested  in  the  Primitive  Church,  for  ascertaining  the  true 
text  of  Ignatius,  (p.  340,)  is  as  uncandid  as  it  is  nnscholarlike. 
The  suggestion  was  not  the  hypothesis  of  the  author  of 
the  Primitive  Church,  but  of  a  Gennan  historian,  not  even 
of  the  orthodox  school;  and  what  is  there  given,  is  not  the 
conjectural,  but  the  "  certain  text."  But  it  was  as  far  aa 
possible  from  our  author's  representation  of  it.  The  idea  of 
collating"  interpolated  and  altered  copies  with  forged  ones," 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  genuine  text  of  an  author, 
is  worthy  only  of  its  real  paternity,  and  must  be  classed 
among  the  "  Curiosities  of  Literature."  The  alleged  "  ana- 
chronisms and  absurdities"  contained  in  those  Epistles,  we 
confess  ourselves  unable  to  discover.  We  have  read  them 
carefully — weighed  every  word  and  syllabic  contained  in 
them — and  the  internal  evidence  alone  would  leave  no 
doubt  on  our  mind,  that  they  must  have  been  written  by 
a  person  situated  as  Ignatius  was,  and  that  they  could  not 
have  been  written  at  any  later  age  than  the  second  century. 
Who  those  "  deeply  learned "  persons  are,  of  whom  our 
author  speaks,  that  "  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  them  for- 
geries," he  does  not  tell  us ;  and  Coleman,  who  appears 
to  be  his  authority,  mentions  but  one  man,  and  that  man 
is  an  Unitarian.  Of  those  who  have  rejected  these  Epistles, 
we  know  of  no  one  who  was  not  in  reality  a  Socinlan,  or  an 
opponent  of  Episcopal  government.  In  conclusion,  we  com- 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  97 

as  new  as  it  was  to  us  to  hear  that  St.  James  the 
Greater  was  ever  supposed  to  be  Bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem, as  our  author  informs  us,  p.  314.* 

(4.)    CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

The  representation  given  of  the  testimony  of  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  (p.  344,)  may  also  be  classed 
among  the  "  Curiosities  of  Literature."  Clement, 
in  speaking  of  the  true  Gnostic,  or  model  Christian, 
says  :  "There  are  two  kinds  of  service  j~  paid 
to  men  ;  one  emendatory,  as  the  medical  art  to 
the  body, — philosophy,  to  the  soul ;  the  other  minis- 
terial, as  that  paid  by  children  to  parents,  and  sub- 
jects to  rulers.  In  like  manner,  in  the  Church,  the 

mend  to  our  author's  attention,  the  following  opinion  of  Leslie : 
"  It  is  impossible  for  any,  not  prejudiced  against  all  convic- 
tion, to  read  the  Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius,  and  to  doubt  any 
longer  that  Episcopacy  was  the  government  of  the  Church 
at  that  time." — (Letter  to  Parker,  inserted  in  the  Preface 
of  his  translation  of  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  4to.  Lond.  1729.) 

*  A  slight  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  the  Church, 
would  have  shown  our  author,  that  though  St.  James  the 
Greater  was  not  himself  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  he  was  one 
of  the  consecrators  of  James  the  Just,  being  assisted  by 
St.  Peter  and  St.  John. — (Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  ii.  1.  23.  Prim. 
Church,  185,  277.) 

t  The  Greek  word  is  (StpnTrti*,  which  may  signify  the 
act  of  serving,  worshipping,  or  healing.  See  Kay's  Clem. 
Alex.  205. 


98  PURITANISM 

Presbyters  perform  the  emendatory,  the  Deacons 
the  ministerial  office.  The  angels  minister  in  both 
capacities  to  GOD  in  the  dispensation  connected 
with  earthly  things;  and  the  Gnostic  does  the  same, 
ministering  to  GOD,  and  exhibiting  to  men  an 
emendatory  contemplation."*  Our  author  renders 
therapeia,  by  "  orders  in  the  ministry,"  cuts  off  the 
beginning  and  omits  the  end  of  the  passage,  and 
renders  the  remainder  thus  :  "just  so  in  the  Church, 
the  Presbyters  are  entrusted  with  the  dignified  min- 
istry, the  Deacons  with  the  subordinate."!  And 
hence  he  infers  that  there  were  but  "  tico  orders  in 
the  ministry,"  notwithstanding  Clement  had  said 
in  the  preceding  book  :  "  For  the  degree  (irputoirett, 
literally  progressions,)  in  the  Church,  of  Bishops, 
Presbyters,  and  Deacons  are  imitations  of  the  angelic 
glory,  and  the  economy  of  their  dispensations."^: 
And  this  is  all  the  evidence  he  could  find  to  sustain 
the  assertion  that  "  Clement  rcpcdtcrlly  shows  that 
as  yet  there  are  properly  but  two  orders  in  the  min- 
istry." (p.  344.)  One  can  hardly  help  smiling  at 
his  rendering  of  Prokathcdria,^  in  this  connection, 
— the  "jirst  scat  in  the  Presbytery,"  and  in  truth, 
our  author  himself  seems  to  be  ashamed  of  it,  for  he 

»  Strom,  vii.  700,  701,  and  Kay's  Clem.  Alex.  205. 

t  We  imagine  this  blunder  is  not  original  with  our  author, 
as  the  language  seems  to  be  copied  from  another  writer  on 
the  same  subject,  without  credit. 

t  Strom,  vi.  667.        §  Protokathedria  1     Strom,  vii.  667. 


NOT  GENUINK  PROTESTANTISM.  99 

credits  it  to  Coleman,  from  whom  he  copied  what 
precedes,  without  credit. 

(5.)   JEWELL  AND  STILIJNGFLEET. 

Again,  the  passages  quoted  from  Jewell  and  Stil- 
lingfleet,  (pp.  381,  382,)  display  the  same  want  of 
acquaintance  with  the  history  and  Fathers  of  the 
Church.  Our  author  quotes  a  passage  from  Jewell, 
in  which  the  argument  turns  upon  the  authority 
of  a  book  now  acknowledged  on  all  hands  to  be  a 
forgery,  without  seeming  to  be  aware  of  the  facts, 
and  another  from  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  which 
shows  "  the  youth  and  want  of  due  consideration," 
of  the  author,  being  a  total  misapprehension  of  the 
sense  of  a  passage  in  book  third,  chapter  four,  of 
Eusebius'  Ecclesiastical  History.  These  examples 
must  suffice  to  show  our  author's  qualifications  for 
discussing  any  question  touching  the  early  Church, 
and  the  dependence  to  be  placed  upon  his  conclu- 
sions. Indeed,  it  has  never  fallen  to  our  lot,  to  pe- 
ruse a  work  making  so  much  display  of  proof,  which 
had  so  little  that  was  pertinent  to  the  real  points  at 
issue,  or,  that,  while  making  great  pretensions  to 
accuracy,  manifested  such  a  glaring  want  of  ac- 
quaintance with  original  sources. 

OUR  AUTHOR'S  VIEWS  OF  SCRIPTURE.  (1.)  SCHISM. 

But  though  our  author  neither  understands  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Reformers,  nor  the  history  of  the  early 


100  PFRITAM8M 

Church,  it  may  be  supposed  that  ho  will  bo  at  homo  in 
the  Bible,  since  the  Bible  aloneis  his  professed  stand- 
ard. A  few  examples  will  enable  us  to  see.  One  of 
his  earliest  attempts  at  exegesis,  is  found  in  his  view  of 
the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  schism.  With  him.  schism 
is  a  not  "  splitting,  rendering,  and  dividing  "  of  the 
body  of  CHUIST,  according  to  the  original  moaning 
and  ordinary  use  of  the  word ;  but  "internal  dissen- 
sion, within  the  bosom  of  the  same  Church."  (p.  279) 
"Dissension,"  according  to  our  author's  interpreta- 
tion, is  schism,  but  not  disunion  and  separation. 
"  Breaking  away  from  the  customs  or  rule  of  the 
Catholic  Church,"  is  not  schism.  Refusing  "  con- 
formity to  a  National  Church,"  is  not  schism.  "  De- 
parting from  the  authority  of  a  Diocesan  Bishop,"  is 
not  schism,  (p.  270.)  But  sharp  and  earnest  discus- 
sion of  doctrine,  such  as  we  have  in  the  Episcopal 
Church,  is  schism,  because  it  does  not  produce  di- 
vision, (p.  280.)* 

*  Our  author  quotes  (p.  271,)  what  he  is  pleased  to  call 
"  a  remarkable  concession,"  from  a  letter  of  the  present  au- 
thor to  a  parishioner,  on  the  subject  of  joining  in  "  Sectarian 
Worship."  And  yet  he  cannot  think  it  a  "  concession."  He 
ought  to  know  that  it  is  a  principle  with  Churchmen,  and 
hence  they  do  not  hesitate  to  avow  the  belief,  that  "  if  we 
have  no  more  Scripture  warrant  than  other  denominations, 
we  are  guilty  of  schism."  This  was  claimed  by  the  early 
Congregationalists,  and  conceded  by  the  early  Churchmen 
of  Connecticut,  as  one  may  see  by  looking  iuto  the  contro- 
versies of  that  period. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  101 

(2.)    THE  INCESTUOUS  CORINTHIAN. 

Again,  on  p.  297,  speaking  of  the  case  of  the 
incestuous  Corinthian,  he  says  that  St.  Paul's  deci- 
sion was  not  a  "  sentence,"  not  a  judgment,  in  a 
"judicial  sense,"  but  a  mere  "laying  down  the 
law."  But  Professor  Robinson,  among  other  signi- 
fications, defines  the  original  word  (x.ptva,)  "  to  judge, 
in  a  judicial  sense,"  and  refers  to  this  very  passage 
as  one  of  the  places  where  it  has  this  sense.* 

(3.)  OUR  LORD'S  LANGUAGE  AT  THE  LAST  SUPPER. 

Again,  on  p.  352,  he  calls  the  interpretation  given 
to  Luke  xxii.  29,  by  the  author  of  the  "  Primitive 
Church,"  (p.173,)  "a  monstrous  claim,"  beyond 
which  "  the  horrid  impieties  of  Popery  could  go  to 
no  greater  length  of  extravagance."  He  objects 
that  our  LORD  did  not  make  over  to  his  Apostles, 
"  as  by  demise  or  bequest,  the  kingdom  which  the 
Father  had  appointed  or  committed  to  him."  And 
yet  that  is  the  meaning  given  to  the  original  word 
by  Professor  Robinson.  He  objects  that  they  were 
not  to  "  sit  on  thrones,  as  the  emblems  of  power," 
though  Robinson  says  "  as  the  emblem  of  regal 

*  Our  author's  comment  on  the  argument  of  ~the  Primi- 
tive Church  is  pointless,  as  St.  Paul's  "  sentence"  was  a 
judgment  passed  upou  a  case  of  "  conceded  facts,"  not  of 
mere  suspicion. 


102  PURITANISM 

authority."  He  objects  also  that  the  language  does 
not  signify  "judging,  in  a  judicial  sense  ;"  though 
this  is  the  precise  language  of  Robinson,  in  refer- 
ence to  this  very  place.  And  finally  he  objects  that 
it  cannot  mean  as  we  suppose,  because  "  there  is 
no  transferring  of  CHRIST'S  kingly  power,  and  no 
allusion  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  LORD'S  Supper 
contained  in  it  at  all."  (p.  353.)  He  then  proposes  to 
give  "  the  whole  passage,"  in  its  connection,  begin- 
ning just  at  the  place  where  it  was  requisite  to  keep 
out  of  sight,  the  most  important  fact  that  it  was  part  of 
the  address  of  our  LORD  to  his  Apostles  at  that  sacred 
Supper.  In  lieu  of  this  he  gives  us  the  meagor  and 
lifeless  interpretation  of  the  Rationalistic  Rosen- 
muller :  and  the  exalted  language  of  that  solemn 
occasion  is  degraded  to  such  unmeaning  jargon  as 
this  :  "  As  my  Father  hath  appointed  me  a  kingdom 
to  be  acquired  by  endurance  of  adversities :  so  I 
appoint  you  a  glory  like  unto  royal  majesty,,  to  be 
acquired  in  a  similar  way."* 

*  We  might  naturally  infer,  from  our  author's  treatment 
of  Scripture,  that  his  sympathies  would  be  with  the  Rational- 
izing theologians  of  Germany ;  but  we  were  not  prepared 
to  find  him  adopting  the  opinions  of  so  thorough-going  a 
Ncologist  us  Rosenmuller,  on  such  a  topic  as  this.  Those 
who  wish  to  know  the  character  of  the  doctrinal  theology 
ofthis  commentator,  may  consult  the  Biblical  Repository,  III. 
213—215,  or  Home's  Introd.  Bib.  Ap.  IV.  Par.  ii.  c.  4.  An 
estimate  of  the  man's  works  by  a  German,  may  be  found 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  103 


(4.)    ORDINATION   OF   TIMOTHY. 

Again,  on  p.  324,  he  says  "  the  criticism  about 
meta  and  dia  (fierce  and  JV«)  [adopted  in  the  Primi- 
tive Church]  is  both  erroneous  and  contemptible," 
and  so  "  thoroughly  exposed  by  Dr,  J.  M.  Mason, 
that  it  was  forty  years  ere  Episcopacy  ventured  to 
revive  it  again."  But  it  is  the  language  of  Profes- 
sor Robinson,  quoted  verbatim  from  his  Greek  Lex- 
icon of  the  New  Testament ;  a  work  which  we  are 
surprised  our  author  should  hold  in  such  light  es- 
teem.* 

(5.)    ANDRONICHTTS    AND  JtJNIA. 

Again,  on  p.  317,  he  says  that  "  Junia,"  men- 
tioned with  Andronicus,  Rom.  xvi.  7,  as  one  of  the 
Apostles,  or  of  note  among  the  Apostles,  "  was  be- 
in  Hengstenberg  on  the  Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch, 
Bib.  Rep.  XI.  425—429 ;  XII.  484,  485.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Nevins  says,  in  a  work  which  has  been  received  since  this 
Review  was  put  to  press,  "  Who  now,  of  any  true  theological 
culture,  thinks  of  taking  the  Rosenmullers,  &c.  for  his  guide 
in  the  study  of  the  Scriptures?" — Mystical  Presence,  146. 

*  Professor  Robinson  also  gives  the  very  sense  to  dia, 
in  Acts  ii.  5,  15,  22,23,43;  iv.  16;  xii.  9,  etc.;  and  to 
meta,  in  Acts  xiv.  27,  (the  passages  referred  to  by  Dr.  Ma- 
son,) and  at  which  he,  and  our  author  after  him,  sneers  so 
contemptuously.  We  commend  to  his  attention  on  this 
point,  Stuart's  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  Dialect, 


104  PUBITAMSX 

yond  all  proper  question  a  woman ;"  and  quotes 
Rosenmuller  in  proof.  But  Luther  and  Calvin  both 
read  Juntas,  and  of  course  considered  it  the  name  of 
a  man.  So  did  Hammond,  and  so  do  Professors 
Stuart  and  Robinson.  But  Hall  tells  us  that 
"  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  several  other 
Fathers  .  .  .  take  Junia  for  a  woman."  (p.  317.) 
But  he  forgot  to  mention  that  they  changed  the 
name  to  Julia,  before  supposing  it  to  be  feminine.* 

(6.)    ORDINATION  OF  TITUS. 

Another  specimen  of  our  author's  exegesis  and 
logic,  is  found  in  Titus  i.  5,  "  and  ordain  elders  in 
every  city."  (p.  321.)  In  order  to  show  that  the 
word  used  "  in  the  original  has  no  possible  reference 
to  any  ceremony  or  mode,  of  ordination,"  which 
no  one  ever  supposed  or  pretended,  he  tells  his 
readers,  that  it  is  the  same  word,  "  as  that  used  in 
the  passage  '  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  WERE 
MADE  sinners.'"  (Rom.  v.  19.)  Then  follows  this 
piece  of  Puritan  Rationalism.  "There  is  no  more 

§§  84,  149;  Buttman's  Greek  Grammar,  §  147;  and  Hist. 
and  Crit.  View  of  Ind.  Enrop.  Cases.  (Quar.  Chris.  Spec.) 
IX.  115,  426.  It  would  not  be  necessary  to  tell  most  theo- 
logians that  the  primary  signification  of  the  words  is  not 
Mie  same,  nor  that  no  word  can  sijrn'fy  two-different  things, 
when  the  same  subject  is  viewed  under  the  same  aspect. 
*  Wells'  Vindication,  p.  67,  on  the  authority  of  Blonde!. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM,  105 

reference  to  a  mystic  ceremony  of  ordination  in  the 
case  of  Titus,  than  there  is  of  a  mystic  ordination  to 
make  men  sinners."  This  citation  of  Rom.  v.  19, 
as  evidence  of  our  author's  own  view  of  Titus  i. 
5,  is  a  very  good  illustration  of  his  own  remark, 
(p.  390,)  that  "  pernicious  doctrines,  like  other  ra- 
venous beasts  of  prey,  are  not  wont  to  go  solitary." 
He  adopts  low  notions  of  man's  primitive  state,  low 
notions  of  the  consequences  of  the  fall,  and  then 
follows,  necessarily,  low  notions  of  the  necessity  of 
the  ministry,  and  consequently,  of  the  ministry  itself.* 
These  must  be  sufficient  as  specimens  of  our 
author's  treatment  of  Scripture.  But  there  is  one 
topic  connected  with  the  present  point  of  inquiry  too 
important  to  be  passed  without  notice.  Puritanism 
claims  to  be  in  an  especial  manner  the  champion  of 
the  Bible.  Its  watchword  is,  the  Bible,  the  whole 
Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible ;  and  our  author 
has  been  careful  to  reiterate  it  continually,  as  though 
fearful  that  it  might  be  forgotten.  And  yet  on  nearly 
every  point  of  dispute  between  us,  Puritanism  does 
not  take  the  Bible  in  its  plain,  literal  sense  ;  it  does 

*  Our  author's  grammar  Is  in  good  keeping  with  his  logic. 
Though  the  word  in  both  passages  is  a  verb  from  the  same 
root,  it  is  not  in  the  same  mood  and  tense,  nor  subject  to  the 
same  construction,  nor  expressive  of  the  same  sense.  The 
parallel  passages  are  Luke  xii.  14;  Acts  vii.  10,  27,35; 
Heb.  vii.  28  ;  from  which  any  reader  may  satisfy  himself  of 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  Tit.  i.  5. 

6 


106  PURITANISM 

not  allow  the  Bible  to  interpret  itselC*    On  the  con- 
trary, it  insists  upon  interpreting  the  obvious  mean- 

•  Our  author  does  not  seem  to  understand  what  the  Re- 
formers meant  by  the  Bible's  being  the  source  and  measure 
of  saving  truth,  nor  in  what  sense  they  regarded  it  as  the 
"  Rule  of  Faith,"  (which,  by  the  way,  was  not  their  mode 
of  describing  it,)  nor  how  it  is  to  be  its  own  interpreter,  as 
his  whole  chapter  on  "  The  Rule  and  Judge  of  Faith," 
abundantly  shows.  The  motto  of  the  Reformers  was,  "  Scrip- 
ture, its  own  interpreter."  But  how  its  own  interpreter? 
It  could  not  be  so,  in  any  reasonable  sense,  unless  the  ex- 
pression was  understood  to  embrace  the  religious,  the  histo- 
rical, and  the  grammatical  elements.  If  the  Bible  Is  to  bo 
understood  from  itself  alone,  the  reader  must  possess  a  mind 
kindred  to  its  Author — must  have  a  nice  discrimination  of 
the  language  he  employed — and  be  able  to  transport  himself 
into  the  writer's  stand-point,  so  as  to  be  able  to  view  things 
in  the  same  order,  connection,  and  relation,  in  which  the 
writer  viewed  them.  It  was  a  strong  sense  of  the  import- 
ance of  the  religious  element,  that  led  Luther  to  say,  "  Had 
I  as  much  of  the  HOLT  SPIRIT  as  St.  John,  I  could  write 
such  a  Gospel." — (Quoted  in  Pusey,  II.  67.)  And  a  strong 
sense  of  the  importance  of  the  grammatical  element,  that 
led  him  to  say,  "  The  best  grammarian  is  the  best  theo- 
logian."— (Titt  Syn.  N.  T.  3.)  It  was  also  a  strong  sense 
of  the  value  and  importance  of  the  historical  element,  that 
led  them  to  appeal  to  antiquity,  and  the  judgment  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  This  appeal  was  no  idle  declamation, 
as  may  be  seen  in  the  works  of  Melancthon,  and  his  disciple* 
Chemnitz.  When  our  author  comes  to  understand  the  views 
and  principles  of  the  Reformers  on  this  subject,  he  will  not 
accuse  us  of  having  departed  from  them. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  107 

ing  of  the  language  out  of  it,  before  it  is  willing  to 
receive  it ;  and  that  upon  the  very  points  where  our 
author  charges  us  with  "monstrous  or  inexcusable 
perversion  of  the  words  of  Holy  Writ,"  (p.  335,) 
with  "anti-scriptural"  and  "horrid"  impiety  (pp. 
276,  356,)  we  follow  the  plain  literal  sense  of  the 
Bible,  which  Puritanism  rejects.  The  chief  points 
of  difference  are  the  five  following.  The  others  are 
incidental  to  these. 

(1.)    THE  CHURCH. 

We  suppose  that  the  body  of  CHRIST,  which  is 
the  Church  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistles, 
especially  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  in 
which  there  is  "  one  LORD,  one  faith,  one  baptism," 
to  which  he  gave  some  Apostles,  and  some  Pro- 
phets, and  some  Evangelists,  and  some  Pastors  and 
Teachers,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  Saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  [i.  e.  of  reconciliation,]  for 
the  edifying  of  the  body  of  CHRIST,"  and  for  which 
he  "  gave  himself,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it  by  the  washing  of  water,"*  to  be  the  Church 
to  which  these  very  Epistles  are  addressed,  ac- 

*  This  "  washing  of  water,"  we  understand  literally,  and 
suppose  it  to  refer  to  baptism.  And  so  Robinson,  Gr.  Lex. 
487,  refers  it  to  the  same  ;  and  Calvin  does  the  same,  Inst. 
IV.  v.  3  ;  and  Luther  also,  Larger  Catech. ;  but  our  author 
can  do  no  such  thing. 


108  PUHITAM8M 

cording  to  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the 
Apostle's  language.  But  our  author  says  no,  that 
the  Apostle  meant  no  such  thing,  that  he  was  talk- 
ing of  some  "  invisible  Church,"  (p.  280,)  though 
the  Apostle  himself  has  been  careful  not  to  intimate 
any  such  thing,  and  seems  to  have  had  no  know- 
ledge  of  any  thing  of  the  kind,  in  the  modern  Puri- 
tan sense  of  the  term. 

(2.)    BAPTISMAL    HEGEXEHATIOX. 

We  suppose  that  when  our  SAVIOUR  said  :  "  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  GOD,"  he  meant  to 
be  understood  just  as  he  said,  and  that  he  referred 
to  that  new  birth  by  water  which  we. receive  in 
baptism,*  and  we  know  no  right  to  scp'aratc  it  from 
the  new  birth  by  the  Spirit.  We  also  suppose  that 
when  St.  Paul  spoke  of  "the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion, and  the  renewing  of  the  HOLY  GIIOST,"  he 
referred  to  baptism,  and  that  we  have  no  right  to 
separate  it  from  the  renewal  by  the  HOLY  GHOST. f 

«  "  The  Fathers  of  the  Church,"  says  Tholuck,  "  and 
after  them  the  interpreters  of  the  Roman  and  Lutheran 
Churches,  almost  universally  take  ufctf  here  in  the  sense  of 
Christian  Baptism  only :  and  this,  in  fact,  is  the  sense  which 
most  readily  offers  itself  to  the  reader. "-^-Com.  on  John  iii.  5. 

t  So  Luther  understood  this  passage. — Short  Cat.  and 
Calv.  lust.  IV.  xv.  2.  But  our  author,  of  course,  rejects  this 
view.  Tholuck  speaks  of  the  "  intimate  connection  in  which 
baptism  and  regeneration  are  generally  placed  in  the  New 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM. 


But  Puritanism,  as  we  shall  see,  regards  this  as 
fundamental  apostacy. 

(3.)    THE  HEAL  PRESENCE. 

We  suppose  that  when  our  SAVIOUR  said :  "  Ex- 
cept ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink 
his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  and  when  he  said 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  "  This  is  my  body,  and  this 
is  my  blood,"  that  he  meant  precisely  what  he  said, 
and  that  he  intended  to  teach  a  real  presence  in  the 
Eucharist,  and  a  real  participation  of  that  divine  life 
which  dwells  in  his  glorified  nature.*  But  Puri- 
tanism, as  we  shall  see,  can  find  no  words  sufficient- 
ly strong  to  express  its  abhorrence  of  this  literal 
meaning  of  our  LORD'S  language. 

Testament. — Eph.  v.  26 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  21  ;  Tit.  iii.  5  ;  Com. 
John  iii.  5.  And  yet  our  author  says,  (p.  373,)  that  Paul 
"  makes  a  distinction  heaven-wide,  between  baptism  and 
regeneration."  All  of  the  foregoing  passages  are  quoted 
by  Luther  in  his  Catechisms,  and  Calvin  in  his  Institutes, 
as  referring  to  baptism  ;  and  are  referred  to  in  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  the  common  symbol  of  the  Dutch  and  German 
Reformed  Churches. 

*  So  taught  Luther,  Short  Cat.  c.  5.  Appendix,  quest. 
13—20;  and  Calvin,  Inst.  IV.  xvii.  5 — 10;  and  the  Re- 
formed Heid.  Cat.,  quest.  75 — 79.  It  is  immaterial  for  ou 
present  purpose,  whether  we  consider  John  vi.  as  spoken 
directly  of  the  Eucharist,  as  many  commentators  have  done 
from  tlio  earliest  times,  (Tliol.  on  John  vi.  51,)  or  as  includ- 
ing it  as  the  general  includes  the  particular. 


110  PURITANISM 

(4.)    OF  THE  MINISTRY. 

We  suppose,  that  when  the  Apostle  said,  that 
"the  ministry  of  reconciliation  "  had  been  given  to 
them,  and  that  "  the  word  of  reconciliation  "  had 
been  committed  to  them,  and  when  in  pursuance  of 
that  ministry,  they  said;  "Now  then  we  are  am- 
bassadors for  CHRIST  ;  as  though  GOD  did  beseech 
you  by  us,  we  pray  you  in  CHRIST'S  stead,  Be  ye 
reconciled  to  GOD,"  he  meant  just  what  his  language 
seems  to  signify ;  that  they  were  the  personal  repre- 
sentatives of  CHRIST,  charged  with  the  important 
mission  of  reconciling  sinners  to  GOD  ;  that  their 
office  was  in  fact,  "  ministerial  intervention,  that 
sins  might  be  forgiven,"  through  the  conjoined  opera- 
tion of  the  word  and  sacrament.  But  our  author 
recognizes  no  difference  between  the  "  ministry" 
and  the  "  word  of  reconciliation,"*  (p.  373,)  and 
denies  that  the  ministry  acts  as  CHRIST'S  "  personal 
representative s."f  (pp.  302,  303.) 

»  Tittman  (Syn.  N.  T.  179—182,)  has  well  shown,  what 
no  competent  writer  ever  doubted,  that  the  JWxer/ati'  Tut 
Ka.Ttt.\KdLytit,  and  \oyov  ttit  xaTetxxotyxc,  are  distinct  things; 
and  also,  what  many  have  overlooked,  that  the  "  Jiaxo/etr 
T«  xatTAAMJ^-xf  is  not  the  office  of  teaching  the  doctrine  of 
the  remission  of  sins ;  but  [that]  it  is  the  office  itself,  .... 
the  office  of  effecting  the  x*T*x\<t^»c :"  the  office  of  recon- 
ciling sinners  to  GOD. 

t  For  the  opinions  of  the  Reformers  on  this  point,  see 
ante. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  Ill 

(5.)    OF    ABSOLUTION. 

We  suppose,  that  when  our  LORD  said  to  his 
Apostles;  "Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them,  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained,"  that  he  meant  precisely  what 
he  said,  and  that  he  thereby  gave  to  his  ministers 
the  power  of  absolving  repenting  sinners.*  But 
our  author  condemns  this  opinion  as  the  "wildness 
of  fanaticism,  the  depths  of  delusion,  the  ravings  of 
madness.5''  (p.  370.) 

(6.)    OF  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION. 

We  suppose  that  when  our  LORD  said  to  his 
Apostles :  "  Lo  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world,"  that  he  meant  just  what  his 
language  imports  ;  that  he  would  be  with  them,  and 
those  who  succeeded  them  in  their  office,  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.  But  our  author  says,  that  "this 
doctrine  of  Apostolical  succession  is,  as  to  its  very 
basis,  fundamentally  contradictory,  both  to  Scripture 
and  to  reason ;  that  the  dogma  upon  which  it  is 
built,  is  subversive  of  the  true  gospel,  the  funda- 
mental dogma  of  popery,"  (p.  372,)  "as  a  doctrine, 
unfounded  in  Scripture,  and  contradictory  to  it  .  .  . 
as  a  fact,  ten  thousand  times  over  a  falsehood." 
(p.  389.) 

*  For  the  opinions  of  the  Reformers  on  this  point,  see 
ante. 


112  PURITANISM 

There  is  one  point,  however,  on  which  Puritan- 
ism follows  the  literal  language  of  Scripture ;  and 
thus  our  author  quotes,  (p.  256,)  with  characteristic 
exultation,  the  passage  (Ps.cxix.  100,)  "  I  have  more 
understanding  than  all  my  teachers,  for  thy  testimo- 
nies are  my  meditation.  I  have  more  understand- 
ing than  the  ancients,  because  I  keep  thy  precepts." 
When,  therefore,  we  tell  them,  in  the  language  of 
the  Psalmist,  (xiii.  15,)  that  in  speaking  thus  "they 
offend  the  generation  of  GOD'S  children,"  and  that  it 
is  our  duty  to  "  stand  in  the  ways  and  see,  and  ask 
for  the  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  that  we 
may  walk  therein,"  (Jer.  vi.  16,)  and  that  we  ought 
to  follow  that  tradition  which  we  have  from  the 
Apostles, — they  reply,  in  the  language  of  certain 
men  who  lived  in  the  days  of  Irenaeus,  "  that  they 
are  wiser  than,  not  only  the  ancients,  but  the  Apos- 
tles also." — (Adv.  Haor.  iii.  2.) 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing,  that  upon  every 
one  of  the  great  points  touching  the  Church,  the  Min- 
istry, Baptismal  Regeneration,  the  Real  Presence, 
and  Absolution,  and  against  which  our  author  in- 
veighs with  so  much  bitterness,  we  hold  to  the  plain 
and  literal  import  of  Holy  Writ,  from  which  Puritan- 
ism has,  in  every  instance  departed ;  and  that,  for 
doing  the  very  thing  which  Puritanism  boasts  of  do-, 
ing  itself,  we  are  denounced  in  the  most  unmeasured 
terms,  and  ever}7  epithet  which  the  odium  theologicum 
can  command,  is  bestowed  upon  us  without  reserve. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  113 

Our  Church*  is  an  "usurper  and  schismatic,"  (p. 
264,)  guilty  of  "horrible  usurpation  and  tyranny, 
of  the  grossest  tyranny,  of  insult  to  GOD,  and  outrage 
upon  the  dearest  rights  of  man,"  (p.  266,)  "of  crim- 
inal usurpation,"  (p.  269,)  that  our  teaching  in  re- 
gard to  schism  "  lays  Christianity  on  the  altar,  a 
scacrifice  to  prelacy, — putting  CHRIST'S  laws  and 
the  people  beneath  the  feet  of  the  prelates," — "that 
it  is  anti-christian ;  a  part  of  the  mystery  of  ini- 
quity;" (p.  276,)  that  we  would  erect  "a  Holy  Al- 
liance to  dethrone  the  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST 

and  to  throw  down  the  Bible  from  the  altar  of  GOD," 
(p.  278,)  that  we  have  "  subverted  the  very  genius 
and  spirit  of  the  polity  of  the  Christian  Church," 
(p.  301,)  that  we  assert  the  "  dreary  principles  of 
spiritual  despotism,"  (p.  308,)  "the  beggarly  all- 

*  Her  theologians  are  treated  in  a  similar  manner.  Rev. 
Dr.  Jarvis  is  guilty  of  "  folly  and  superstition,"  (p.  273  ;) 
Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  of  "  usurpation  and  perversion,"  (p.  298  ;) 
the  Hon.  and  Rev.  Mr.  Perceval,  of  "  arrant  fraud  and 
barefaced  trickery,"  (pp.  336,  351 ;)  and  Mr.  Chapin 
"  stumbles  into  the  ditch  dug  by  Perceval"  (p.  337.)  The 
Rev.  Dr.  Coit  is  especially  the  object  of  his  hate,  (pp.  411 — 
440,)  because  of  the  unpleasant  truths  brought  to  light 
by  his  work  on  Puritanism.  The  task  of  Dr.  Coit  was  an 
unpleasant  one  ;  but  it  was  due  to  truth  and  history  to  exe- 
cute it ;  and  he  deserves  the  thanks  of  every  truth-loving 
historian  for  the  able  and  thorough  manner  in  which  he  has 
performed  it,  whether  approving  of  all  the  language  em- 
ployed or  not. 

6* 


114  PURITANISM 

menta  of  superstition,"  (p.  307,)  that  our  claims 
are  "  worse  than  simple  error ;  they  are  injurious  to 
CHRIST,  and  subversive  of  the  entire  truth  of  the 
Gospel,"  (p.  350,)  guilty  of  "monstrous  and  inexcusa- 
ble perversion  of  the  words  of  Holy  Writ,"  (p.  355,) 
urging  "unscriptural  and  horrid  ideas,"  (356,)  that 
"  we  have  an  abundance  of  Popelings,  but  scarcely  in 
all,  one  decent  Pope,"  (p.  357,)  that  "there  is  nothing 
in  Popery  more  destructive  to  truth,  to  freedom,  and 
to  true  religion,  more  arrogant,  more  impious  toward 
GOD,  or  more  injurious  to  man,"  (358,)  that  our  sys- 
tem "  is  essentially  the  system  of  Popery,"  "  a  pes- 
tilent superstition ;  the  sum  and  essence  of  the  great 
anti- Christian  apostacy  of  Rome,"  beyond  which  no 
"wildness  of  fanaticism,"  no  "depths  of  delusion," 
no  "ravings  of  madness,"  can  go.  (p.  370.) 

THE  SINCERITY  OF  THIS  DESCRIPTION. 

Such  are  some  of  the  choice  epithets  bestowed 
upon  us  by  the  author  of  The  Puritans  and  their 
Principles,  for  accepting  the  literal  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  holding  firmly  to  the  principles  of  the  Re- 
formers ;  and  they  leave  no  doubt  of  our  author's 
descent  or  his  principles.  Indeed,  the  work  in  ques- 
tion, is  one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  Puritanism  we 
have  seen  in  a  long  time ;  its  recklessness  of  asser- 
tion, and  its  bitterness  of  spirit,  are  genuine  marks 
of  its  paternity.  Yet  one  hardly  knows  whether  to 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTEST ANTISM,  115 

attribute  such  language  to  ignorance,  or  uncharita- 
bleness,  or  to  both.  That  any  intelligent  man,  in 
his  sober  senses,  can  believe  one-half  that  our  author 
has  imputed  to  the  system  of  the  Church,  is  incon- 
ceivable.* It  is  impossible  to  believe,  that  he  really 
supposes  that  such  a  system  was  set  forth  by  Cran- 
mer,  and  Ridley,  and  Latimer,  and  held  by  such 
men  as  Bull,  and  Butler,  and  Beveridge,  and  Bram- 
hall,  and  Howe,  and  Hooker,  and  Hammond,  and 
Heber,  and  Jebb,  and  Kenn,  and  Leslie,  and  Nelson, 
and  Pearson,  and  Taylor,  and  Wall,  and  Wilson  ; 
or  that  he  supposes  that  it  was  of  such  a  system,  that 
such  men  as  James  Angell  James,  and  Henry  Cooke, 
and  J.  W.  Morgan,  and  Robert  Hall,  and  Richard 
Watson,  and  Adam  Clarke,  and  Albert  Barnes,  and 
Leonard  Bacon,  have  spoken  in  terms  of  high  com- 
mendation ;  unless  we  also  suppose,  that  knowledge 
is  alone  with  our  author,  and  that  wisdom  will  die 
with  him.f 

*  We  can  conceive  of  no  more  deliberate  and  wilful  mis- 
representation (charity  requires  no  milder  language,)  than 
that  which  says,  that  the  Church  teaches  that  we  "  cannot 
be  justified  by  faith  alone ;"  that  we  "  must  have  the  help 
of  a  human  priesthood,  with  its  valid  sacraments,  or  you  can- 
not be  saved." — (p.  373.) 

t  For  the  languages  of  these  and  other  prominent  dissent- 
ers, see  The  State  of  Religion  in  England  and  Germany 
compared,  12 — 24. 


116  PURITANISM 


THE  FANCIED  RESULT. 

But  whether  these  men  were  right  or  wrong, 
whether  they  understood  whereof  they  affirmed  or 
not,  is  now  no  matter  of  consequence  ;  as  the  ob- 
ject of  their  hopes  and  their  wishes,  of  their  joy  and 
their  praise,  is  no  more.  Our  author  has  seen,  to 
copy  his  chaste  and  classic  style,  "  the  mighty  fabric 
of  Episcopacy  tumble  to  the  ground,"  (p.  321,)  he 
has  seen  Prelacy  die,  "  though  in  the  last  ditch," 
(p.  325,)  and  nothing  now  remains  but  to  sing  the 
requiem  of  its  departed  greatness.  Yea  more  than 
this,  he  has  discovered  that  this  "  mighty  fabric  " 
was  no  fabric  at  all ;  he  has  searched,  he  says, 
"  clear  down  through  the  Scriptures,  and  found  not 
a  trace  or  fragment  of  Episcopacy,"  (p.  333,)  he 
has  followed,  he  says,  "  the  pretensions  of  Prelacy 
to  her  haunts  and  strongholds,  in  the  deep-tangled 
wild-wood  of  the  Fathers,"  (p.  333,)  in  search  of 
Bishops,  but  they  were  so  "  very  noiseless  and  shy, 
that  nobody  [in  the  second  century,]  seemed  to  know 
any  thing  about  them,  and  no  footstep  or  trace  is 
left  either  of  their  name  or  existence,"  (p.  339,)  and 
that  what  has  heretofore  been  considered  by  the 
greatest  and  best  of  men,  as  conclusive  evidence  on 
the  subject,  turns  out  to  be  no  more  than  "  a  few 
arrant  pcrversionf,  and  some  two  or  three  chains  of 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  117 

modern  guesses."  (339.)  All  labor  and  controversy 
must  therefore  be  at  an  end.  Our  author  has 
swept  away  "the  claims  of  prelacy,  as  with  the 
besom  of  destruction ;"  (p.  349,)  and  the  truth,  we 
are  told,  now  "  stands  forth  clear,  consistent  and  uni- 
form, affording  no  manner  of  support  to  the  Episco- 
pal claims."  (p.  349.)  And  now,  since  the  accom- 
plishment of  such  a  feat,  our  author  can  well  afford 
to  compose  himself  to  rest,  beneath  his  towering 
laurels,  sure  of  an  immortality  not  unlike  that  of  the 
knight  of  La  Mancha,  because  of  some  of  his  famous 
exploits.  But  we  advise  him  to  drink  deep  at  the 
fountain  of  Lethe,  lest  the  airy  monster  should  after 
all  prove  to  be  something  more  substantial  than  the 
baseless  fabric  of  a  vision,  rising  Phcenix-like,  and 
invigorated  by  its  conflict,  should  again  afflict  his 
waking  hours,  and  nightly  dreams,  to  the  dissipation 
of  all  his  fancied  greatness. 

GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  WORK. 

We  have  now  gone  over  with  so  much  of  our 
author's  work,  as  properly  belongs  to  our  present 
inquiry.  Not  that  we  have  exposed  all  his  mis- 
takes and  errors  ;  but  that  we  have  considered  all 
the  leading  points  which  he  has  made,  the  character 
of  the  evidence  which  he  employs,  and  his  mode  of 
using  it,  and  have  thereby  been  able  to  form  a  proper 
estimate  of  its  accuracy  and  value.  To  do  more 


118  PURITANISM 

than  this,  to  follow  him  through  the  whole  volume, 
and  point  out  every  mistake,  and  correct  every  error, 
would  require  a  volume  as  large  as  the  work  itself. 
This  will  be  apparent  from  a  statement  of  those  cha- 
racteristic features  of  the  work  which  must  be  obvi- 
ous to  all  familiar  with  the  subject.  These  are, — 
ignorance  of  original  sources  of  information  in  regard 
to  the  topics  discussed  ; — ignorance  of  the  character 
of  authorities  employed,  and  want  of  fairness  in 
using  them ; — ignorance  or  misrepresentation  of 
the  real  sentiments  of  those  he  is  opposing; — un- 
scrupulous assertion  unsustained  by  proof  on  the 
most  important  points  in  dispute  ; — concealment  of 
the  place  where  his  authority  is  found  when  proof 
is  attempted ;— quoting  second-hand  from  books  he 
has  never  seen,  without  acknowledging  the  inter- 
mediate source  ; — appeals  to  passion,  prejudice,  and 
ignorance,  with  an  utter  disregard  of  the  rights  and 
feelings  of  others.  To  point  out  every  departure  from 
truth  and  propriety  in  such  a  work,  and  correct  every 
misrepresentation,  would  be  as  tedious  as  useless. 
For  those  who  understand  the  subject,  no  answer  at 
all  is  required.  Those  who  do  not  already  under- 
stand it  thoroughly,  and  wish  to  see  it  proved  more  in 
detail,  will  find  the  materials  for  so  doing,  in  the  au- 
thorities indicated  in  the  margin  of  this  review. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  119 


HISTORY  OF  PURITANISM. 

Of  the  general  history  of  Puritanism  we  have 
said  nothing,  partly,  because  k  does  not  fall  within 
the  scope  of  our  present  inquiry  ;  and  partly,  because 
that  subject  has  been  so  thoroughly  discussed  of  late, 
especially  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coit,  that  it  is  unneces- 
sary. Our  object  has  been  to  examine  the  claims 
of  Puritanism  to  be  the  genuine  representative  of  the 
Reformation ;  and  to  show  that  its  charges  against 
us  of  having  departed  from  the  principles  of  the  Re- 
formers, are  based  upon  its  own  deviations  from, 
and  ignorance  of  those  principles.  There  are,  how- 
ever,  a  few  points,  relative  to  Puritanism  and  Epis- 
copacy in  Connecticut,  not  elsewhere  fully  explained, 
and  not  well  understood,  which  seem  to  require  a 
brief  notice. 

TOLERATION    GRANTED   TO   EPISCOPALIANS  J    OUR 
AUTHOR'S  ACCOUNT. 

This  is  a  point  on  which  our  author  dwells  with 
peculiar  delight,  in  order  to  show  the  superiority  of 
the  Puritans  over  all  other  nations  and  sects ;  and  he 
gives  a  brief  synopsis  of  history  in  proof  of  his  posi- 
tion. His  statement  of  the  case  is  this.  "  The  first 
Episcopal  church  in  Connecticut,  was  established 
in  1723.  It  was  only  four  years  from  this  period, 
before  a  law  of  the  Colony  provided,  that  whatever 


120  PUHITAM8M 

tax  was  paid  for  the  support  of  religion  by  any  per- 
son belonging  to,  and  worshipping  with  an  Episco- 
pal  church,  it  should  be  paid  over  to  the  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England  upon  whose  ministry  such 
person  should  attend.  Those  who  conformed  to 
the  Church  of  England,  were  authorized  to  tax  them- 
selves for  the  support  of  their  clergy,  and  were  ex- 
cused from  all  taxes  for  building  meeting-houses, 
and  for  other  purposes  of  the  Churches  of  the  pre- 
vailing denomination.  This  relaxation  in  the  laws, 
made  so  soon  after  dissent  assumed  a  regular  form, 
and  probably  on  its  first  application  to  the  Legisla- 
ture for  relief,  shows  that  there  prevailed  in  Connec- 
ticut, at  the  time,  no  serious  disposition  to  persecute 
or  oppress  the  people  of  other  denominations."*  (p. 
402.)  In  order  to  obtain  a  just  view  of  this  evi- 
dence, we  must  consider  the  history  of  the  law  of 
1727,  and  the  practice  of  the  Colony  under  it. 

EXEMPLIFIED  AT  STRATFORD. 

The  Parish  of  Stratford  was  first  duly  organized 
about  1708,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Muirson  appointed  mis- 

*  This  same  story  is  told  in  pretty  much  the  same  way,  by 
the  Rev  Dr.  Bacon,  in  his  Review  of  Colton  on  the  Religious 
State  of  the  Country.— Quar.  Chris.  Spec.  VIII.  495 — 499. 
Also,  by  Prof.  Kingsley,  in  his  Historical  Discourse  on 
the  SOOfA  Anniversary  of  the  Settlement  of  Ncw-Haren. — 
Note  I,  94 — 98,  from  which  our  author  has  copied  his 
account. 


NOT  GENUINE  PKOTESTANTISM.  121 

sionaiy  there.  But  he  died  before  entering  upon 
his  duties.*  After  the  organization  of  the  parish, 
the  members  thereof  objected  to  paying  taxes  to  the 
Congregationalists,  on  the  ground  that  they  were 
legally  exempt  by  the  laws  of  England  ;  and  upon 
their  refusal,  Timothy  Titherten,  one  of  the  church- 
wardens, and  John  Marey,  one  of  the  Vestrymen, 
were  arrested  about  midnight,  December  12,  1780, 
and  compelled  to  walk  eight  miles  to  jail,  where 
they  were  confined  without  fire  or  light,  until  they 
paid  the  sums  demanded.  Again,  on  the  14th  of 
January,  1709,  David  Shelton,  William  Rawlinson, 
and  Archibald  Dunlap,  were  arrested  on  the  same 
ground,  and  taken  to  jail.  On  the  way  there,  Shelton 
begged  permission  to  stop  and  warm  himself  at  a 
house  on  the  road,  and  not  being  quick  enough  to 
satisfy  his  keepers,  was  taken  and  laid  across  the 
back  of  a  horse,  and  so  carried.  These  also  paid 
the  sums  demanded,  on  condition  that  the  money 
should  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  Lieutenant- 


*  The  tpirit  of  the  Puritans  at  Stratford  may  be  inferred 
from  a  single  fact.  Not  long  after  the  death  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Muirson,  Isaac  Nell,  one  of  the  Churchwardens  there — 
a  man  of  unblameable  conversation — also  died,  whereupon 
Borne  doggrel  verses  were  written  and  circulated  there,  hav- 
ing these  lines — 

"Isaac  Nell  is  gone  to  hell, 

To  tell  Mr.  Muirson  that  his  Church  is  well." 


122  PURITAX18M. 

Governor,  subject  to  the  order  of  the  next  General 
Court  of  the  Colony.  Several  other  persons  also 
paid  such  taxes,  on  similar  conditions,  and  the  pro- 
perty of  others  was  sold  at  auction  to  pay  them.  But 
no  order  could  be  obtained.  During  the  year  1709, 
William  James,  who  had  been  appointed  an  Agent 
of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign 
Parts,  went  to  a  town  meeting  in  Stratford,  where 
such  taxes  were  to  be  levied,  and  for  himselt  and 
fellow-members  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  in 
behalf  of  the  Society  in  England,  protested  against 
being  thus  taxed,  and  asked  to  have  the  protest  re- 
corded, which  was  refused.  Again,  in  May,  1710, 
the  said  James,  as  Agent  of  the  said  Society,  pre- 
sented a  petition  to  the  General  Court  at  Hartford, 
to  be  relieved  from  taxes,  and  to  have  the  money  in 
the  hands  of  the  Lieuienant-Governor  disposed  of, 
but  without  any  effect.  Our  author,  therefore,  is 
mistaken  by  several  years,  both  as  to  the  time  of 
the  formation  of  the  parish,  and  also  as  to  the  time 
of  the  first  application  to  the  Legislature  for  relief. 
The  effect  of  this  persecution  was,  to  drive  a  large 
share  of  the  Churchmen  from  Stratford,  and  the 
parish  remained  without  a  resident  clergymen  until 
1722.  This  year  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pigot  was  sent 
there  as  a  missionary,  and  a  house  of  worship  was 
built  the  year  following.  Mr.  Pigot  was  succeeded 
by  Rev.  Samuel  Johnson,  in  1723. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  123 


AT  FAIRFIELD  ;    LAW  OP  1727. 

In  1725,  a  parish  was  formed,  and  a  house  of  wor- 
ship built  at  Fairfield,  and  the  same  course  of  levying 
on  property  of  Churchmen,  and  selling  at  the  post 
to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  Congregationalist  ministers, 
was  also  pursued  there. 

In  May,  1727,  "  MOSES  WARD,"  one  of  the  War- 
dens of  the  parish  of  Fairfield,  together  "  with  the 
other  Wardens,  Vestrymen,  and  brethren  "  of  that 
parish,  presented  a  memorial  to  the  Colonial  Legis- 
lature, setting  forth,  that  they  were  a  legally  organ- 
ized Society,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 
London,  and  bound  by  obligations  to  the  Honorable 
Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts, 
to  sustain  public  worship  according  to  the  rites  of 
the  Church  of  England ;  but  that,  notwithstanding 
this,  taxes  had  been  levied  upon  them,  and  their 
property  taken  and  sold ;  praying  that  the  money 
which  had  been  taken  thus  illegally  from  them,  might 
be  returned.  At  the  same  time  reminding  the  Legis- 
lature what  a  hardship  the  Puritans  had  regarded  it, 
when  obliged  to  pay  taxes  to  the  Church  of  England. 

The  officers  of  the  Church  appeared  before  the 
Legislature  by  attorney,  and  declared  their  intention 
to  prosecute  the  thing  to  effect.  They  proposed,  how- 
ever, to  withdraw  their  memorial,  and  to  renounce 
all  claim  upon  the  money,  if  the  Legislature  would 


124  PURITANISM 

release  them  from  all  future  claims  of  the  kind.  In 
the  meantime,  the  opinion  of  the  King's  Attorney- 
General,  and  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  against  the 
legality  of  the  Congregrational  establishment,  had 
been  obtained.  Under  these  circumstances,  the 
General  Court  of  the  Colony  passed  a  law  in  May, 
1727,  permitting  the  taxes  of  such  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  as  belonged  to  a  parish  having 
a  resident  clergyman  "  in  Orders,"  to  be  paid  to 
such  clergyman  ;  the  taxes,  until  1746,  being  levied, 
however,  by  the  whole  town  ;  after  that  by  the  Con- 
gregationalists  alone.*  The  members  of  surh 
parishes  were  also  exempt  from  taxes  to  build 
"  meeting-houses,"  and  allowed  to  tax  themselves 
for  the  support  of  a  clergyman.  This  history  of  the 
law  will  enable  any  one  to  see  what  "  disposition  " 
the  Puritans  of  Connecticut  entertained  towards 
those  of  other  denominations.  The  practice  under 
it  will  confirm  this  conclusion. 

*  The  letter  of  this  law  was  most  rigidly  enforced  ;  and 
no  Parish  was  allowed  the  benefits  of  it  unless  they  had,  at 
the  time,  a  resident  clergyman  "  in  orders ;"  and  the  spirit 
of  it  was  continually  evaded  by  Puritan  contrivance.  This 
was  done  in  two  ways :  in  one  case  the  General  Court  levied 
a  Colonial  tax,  which  was  to  be  paid  by  all  persons ;  and 
then  the  taxes  of  certain  towns  were  given  directly  to  the 
Congregational  Society.  In  the  other  case,  the  Colonial 
taxes  of  the  Congregationalists  in  a  particular  town  were 
abated,  while  Churchmen  were  required  to  pay  them. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  125 


PRACTICE  UNDER  THAT  LAW.      (1.)    GREENWICH. 

In  October,  1738,  the  Churchmen  of  Greenwich 
and  Horseneck,  being  members  of  a  Church  of 
England  parish,  adjoining  them,  in  the  Colony  of 
New- York,  petitioned  the  General  Court  to  be  al- 
lowed the  benefit  of  the  law  of  1727,  but  were  re- 
fused,  because  they  had  no  resident  minister  in  their 
own  town,  notwithstanding  oiir  author's  assertion  to 
the  contrary;  . 

(2.)  SIMSBURY. 

In  May,  1742,  the  parish  of  Simsbury,  being  duly 
organized,  and  having  a  regular  Catechist  appointed 
by  the  Society  in  England,  but  no  clergyman  "  in 
orders,"  and  then  erecting  a  church,  petitioned  the 
General  Court  to  be  allowed  the  benefit  of  the  law 
of  1727,  but  were  refused,  and  were  compelled  not 
only  to  pay  the  ministerial  tax,  but  also  a  tax  for 
building  a  "  meeting-house."  A  similar  petition 
was  presented  to  the  same  body  in  May,  1743,  with 
the  same  resulU 


(3.)    WATERBURY. 

In  October,  1744,  the  parish  of  Waterbury  peti- 
tioned the  General  Court  for  liberty  to  tax  its  own 


1'26  PURITANISM 

members,  for  building  a  church,  but  were  denied  the 
liberty,  although  our  author  tells,  "they  were  al- 
lowed to  tax  themselves." 


(4.)  READING. 

In  October,  1745,  the  Parish  of  Reading  petitioned 
the  General  Court  to  have  certain  taxes  remitted, 
which  had  then  been  remitted  to  the  Congregation, 
alists  in  that  place  for  fourteen  years,  but  no  action 
could  be  obtained.  Three  years  after  they  petition- 
ed again,  when  the  prayer  of  the  petition  was  re- 
jected.* 

*  The  public  taxes  of  all  the  Congregationalists  of  Read- 
ing were  remitted  by  the  Court  of  Connecticut,  for  more 
than  twenty  years,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  them  the 
better  to  support  the  Congregational  Ministry  among  them. 
This  was  a  very  common  practice,  being  done  in  many 
towns.  In  other  instances,  money  was  actually  appropriated 
out  of  the  public  treasury  for  that  purpose.  Thus  in  May, 
1734,  the  General  Court  appropriated  two  hundred  pounds 
(£200)  to  the  Congregational  Society  in  West  Haven,  for 
the  same  purpose,  the  reason  assigned  being  the  declaration 
of  Mr.  Arnold,  their  Minister,  for  Episcopacy — his  prede- 
cessor, Mr.  Johnson,  having  done  the  same.  In  October, 
1736,  the  General  Court  appropriated  forty  pounds  (£40) 
a  year  for  four  years,  to  the  same  parish,  for  the  same 
purpose;  and  in  May,  1737,  authorized  them  to  sell  fifty 
acres  of  public  lands  for  the  purpose  of  a  parsonage. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  127 


(5.)    CHURCHMEN   EXCLUDED    FROM  BENEFITS  OF 
PUBLIC    ACTS. 

In  October,  1748,  a  public  Act  was  passed  direct- 
ing how  houses  for  public  worship  should  be  built, 
from  the  benefits  of  which  Churchmen  were  ex- 
cepted.* 

(6.)    CHURCHMEN    NOT    ALLOWED     TO    TAX    THEM- 
SELVES,         r 

In  October,  1749,  the  Churchmen  in  the  State 
generally,  petitioned  the  General  Court  for  liberty  to 
tax  themselves,  for  all  purposes  touching  public 
worship.  The  petition  was  continued  to  the  next 
session,  and  then,  "  given  the  go-by." 

In  May,  1752,  a  similar  petition  was  presented 
to  the  same  body,  for  the  same  purpose,  which  passed 
the  "  Lower  House,"  but  in  the  "  Upper  House," 
continued  to  October.  In  October  it  passed  the 
"Lower  House  "  again,  but  was  rejected  in  the 
"Upper  House." 

In  May,  1759,  the  Parish  of  Simsbury  petitioned 
the  General  Court  for  liberty  to  tax  its  own  mem- 
bers,  which  was  denied. 

*  The  words  of  the  law  are,  "  those,  only  tolerated  by 
the  laws  of  this  colony,  and  dissenting  from  us,  excepted." 
This  use  of  the  word  "  tolerate,"  enables  us  to  understand 
what  the  Puritans  meant  by  toleration ;  to  wit,  liberty  to 
live  in  a  country,  without  enjoying  ita  privileges. 


128  PURITANISM 


TAXATION  WITHOUT  REPRESENTATION. 

These  facts  in  regard  to  the  practice  of  the  Con- 
necticut Puritans  under  the  law  of  1727,  will  enable 
all  to  see  the  spirit  with  which  the  law  was  passed, 
and  what  might  have  been  expected,  had  nothing 
but  Puritan  sense  of  justice  been  concerned  in  it.* 
It  should  also  be  remarked,  that  a  few  years  after 
the  law  of  1727,  (May,  1746.)  an  act  was  passed, 
prohibiting  those  who  were  exempt  from  paying 
taxes  to  the  established  order  from  voting,  when 
taxes  for  ecclesiastical  purposes  were  levied.  The 
practical  effect  of  these  laws  was,  that  when  the 
Congregationalists  taxed  themselves  they  taxed  every 
body  else  also,  though  none  but  their  own  order  were 
allowed  to  vote  ;  and  this  taxation  without  represen- 
tation, was  practised  by  the  Puritans  upon  all  other 
denominations  until  the  Revolution.! 

*  In  "  The  Connecticut  Dissenters'  Strong  Box,"  publish- 
ed in  1802,  wo  find  this  comment  upon  the  effect  of  Mr. 
Ward's  petition.  "  The  hierarchy  [of  Connecticut]  cried 
aloud,  '  religion  is  in  danger ! '  But  the  British  Lion  growled 
and  the  petition  was  granted,  though  not  without  more  ifs, 
and  ands,  if  so  be,  provided  that,  and  so  forth,  than  were 
ever  interlarded  into  the  fable  of  the  lawyer's  bull  and  farm- 
er's ox." — pp.  28,  29. 

t  This  was  precisely  what  the  Puritans  objected  to  in  the 
English  Parliament,  at  tho  very  moment  they  were  doing  it 
themselves,  and  for  which  they  revolted.  "  Great  Britain," 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  129 

POLITICAL  TENDENCIES OUR  AUTHOR'S  VIEW. 

This  is  a  subject  upon  which  our  author  dwells 
with  much  apparent  delight,  and  he  seems  to  ima- 
gine that  here,  in  particular,  the  glory  of  Puritanism 
is  manifested.  He  tells  us,  with  no  small  exulta- 
tion, that  "  Prelacy,  as  a  system,  is  naturally,  and 
ever  has  been,  hostile  to  civil  liberty ;  [and  that] 
the  principles  of  Puritanism  and  civil  liberty  rose 
and  flourished  together." — (p.  401.)  Again  he 
says,  (p.  407,)  "  The  present  entire  equality  of  all 
sects  of  worshippers,  which  characterizes  our  Amer- 
ican institutions,  was  as  sure  to  result  from  these 
principles  [i.  e.  of  Puritanism]  as  the  sun  is  to  break 
through  the  shadows  of  a  misty  morning."  And 
much  more,  to  the  same  effect,  is  scattered  through 

the  whole  book. 

• 

RELIGIOUS  ESTABLISHMENTS  IN  THE  COLONIES. 

It  is  not  our  intention,  however,  to  write  the  his- 
tory of  either  party ;  but  we  cannot  refrain  from  re- 
ferring our  author  to  a  careful  inquiry  into  the  Ori- 
gin and  Progress  of  Popular  Liberty,  published  in 
volume  II.  of  the  New- York  Review,  where  he  will 

says  John  Adams,  "  concocted  the  plan of  raising 

a  revenue  within  the  Colonies,  by  authority  of  Parliament, 
for  the  avowed  or  pretended  purpose  of  protecting,  securing, 
and  defending  them." — Letter  of  John  Adams  to  Dr.  Cal- 
koen,  of  Amsterdam,  October  4,  1780. 
7 


130  PURITANISM 

find  that  the  principles  of  our  institutions  had  their 
origin  centuries  before  Puritanism  was  thought  of. 
We  must  also  remark,  in  passing,  that  if  these  prin- 
ciples had  resulted  from  Puritanism,  we  should  have 
expected  to  hate  seen  the  results  first  when  Puritan- 
ism itself  prevailed.  Yet  history  does  not  confirm 
this  supposition.  Puritan  Massachusetts,  and  Puri» 
tan  Connecticut,  had  their  religious  establishments. 
But  Roman  Catholic  Maryland  never  had  any,  nor 
any  test  acts,  except  in  the  time  of  Cromwell.* 
Quaker  Pennsylvania  never  had  any.f  Baptist 
Rhode-Island  never  had  any4  Episcopal  and 
Dutch  Reformed  New- York  never  had  any.§  Epis- 
copal South-Carolina,  and  Presbyterian  New-Jer- 
sey never  had  any.||  Episcopal  Virginia  once  had 
an  establishme^fc  but  it  was  given  up  in  1785.1T 
The  principle  of  a  religious  establishment  was  first 

•  Pitkin's  Hist  U.  S.,  I.  56,  57.    Tyson's  Hist.  Disc.  37 


t  Tyson  41—50. 

t  Calender's  Hist.  Disc.  103,  104.  See  also  Laws  of 
1647,  in  Hist.  Col.  R  I.  IV.  229. 

§  "  The  Highflying  Churchman  stript  of  his  legal  robe," 
p.  7.  That  the  cases  of  Presbyterian  suffering,  to  which  our 
author  refers,  in  New-York,  must  be  received  with  many 
grains  of  allowance,  it  would  be  easy  to  show,  were  it  within 
the  province  of  our  inquiry. 

||  Ib.  p.  7.    Pit  Hist  U.  S.  I.  59. 

f  Hawk's  Hist  Church  Virg.  175. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.        131 

given  up  in  Connecticut  in  1818,  and  in  Massachu- 
setts in  1834.*  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the 
Principles  of  Puritanism  flourished  better  among 
Roman  Catholics,  Episcopalians,  Baptists,  Quakers 
and  Presbyterians,  than  among  the  real  Congrega- 
tional Puritans.  Indeed  one  cannot  avoid  the  con- 
clusion drawn  by  Mr.  Tyson,f  that  "  it  may  be 
doubted,  if  all  the  Colonies  had  been  peopled  by 
men  of  similar  views  and  policy  with  those  of  New- 
England,  whether  the  angelic  form  of  religious  free- 
dom, now  our  presiding  and  guarding  genius,  had 
ever  descended  to  crown  the  happiness,  or  bless  the 
social  charities  of  the  present  United  States.":}: 

•  Wingard,  155. 

t  His.  Disc.  50. 

t  Those  who  wish  to  see  Puritan  ideas  of  freedom,  as  ex- 
emplified in  Connecticut,  not  towards  the  "  minor  sects,"  but 
towards  each  other,  should  read  the  History  of  Congregation- 
alism in  Hartford,  from  1650  to  1664,  (Trumb.  I  296—213,) 
of  Rev.  Philemon  Robbing,  of  Branford,  and  of  the  whole 
period  from  1730  to  1748,  (Trumb.  II.  134—164,)  and  of 
the  great  "  Wallingford  case,"  1758  to  1765— (Trumb.  II. 
480 — 526.)  After  the  New  Church  had  been  organized  by 
the  Association  in  Wallingford,  and  a  new  house  commenced, 
the  builders  were  retarded  for  some  time  by  the  opposition  of 
the  members  of  the  old  society,  who  drove  off  the  workmen . 
BO  that,  literally,  they  fought  with  clubs  over  the  sills  of  the 
new  meeting-house.  Seventy  years  after  this,  the  house  and 
land  for  which  this  new  society  contended  became  the  prop- 
erty of  the  Episcopal  church  in  that  place, — the  present 


1 32  PURITANISM 

REV.  DR.  BACON'S  VIEW. 

We  have  seen  that  the  ecclesiastical  establish- 
merit  of  Connecticut  was  only  completely  set  aside 
in  1818,  and  we  propose  to  inquire  into  the  history 
of  that  event;  or  in  other  words,  how  the  revolu- 
tion of  that  period  came  to  take  place.  Rev.  Dr. 
Bacon,  in  his  review  of  Colton,  fays  that  it  was 
the  Congregationalists  that  made  it,  because  they 
were  the  majority ;  that  all  the  minor  sects  united, 
were  but  a  fraction  of  the  people  of  Connecticut." 
The  comparative  numbers  of  the  "minor  sects," 
and  the  "  standing  order,"  are  not  here  fairly  repre- 
sented ;  but,  as  that  is  nothing  to  our  present  pur- 
pose, we  let  it  pass,  and  proceed  to  consider  the  real 
history  of  that  occurrence.! 

church  standing  on  the  same  premises  as  the  old  "  Well's 
Meeting-house." 

»  Quar.  Chris.  Spec.  VIII.  500—503. 

t  Dr.  Bacon's  authority  in  that  article,  for  the  early  statis- 
tics of  Churchmen  in  Connecticut,  and  for  the  manner  in 
which  the  "minor  sects"  were  treated,  was  a  manuscript 
from  the  pen  of  Rev.  Dr.  Goodrich,  of  Durham.  Those 
papers  now  turn  out  to  be  part  of  the  documents  prepared  by 
that  "Convention"  of  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  min- 
isters, who,  from  1766  to  1775,  were  fomenting  difficulties, 
in  order  to  be  sent  to  London  to  prevent  the  introduction  of 
Bishops  here.  One  of  the  means  was,  to  appoint  a  commit- 
tee to  "  obtain  all  the  instances  of  Episcopal  oppression  they 
could  in  Virginia,  Maryland,  Georgia,  and  the  Carolina*"-- 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  133 

EPISCOPALIANS  SUPPORT  THE  GOVERNMENT. 

The  Episcopalians  of  Connecticut  had,  from  the 
very  first,  gone  upon  the  principle  of  yielding  obe- 
dience to  the  laws  under  which  they  lived.  They 
did  this  before  the  Revolution,  the  great  body  of 
them  did  it  during  the  Revolution,  and  they  did  it 
universally  after  the  Revolution.  Consequently, 
when  the  Democratic  party  arose  in  the  United 
States,  they  remained  true  to  the  government  of 
their  own  State,  which,  was  decidedly  a  Federal 
State.  During  the  harsh  political  conflicts  between 
Democratic  and  Federal  Congregationalists,  and 
between  all  the  other  parties  that  arose  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  State  government,  Churchmen  remained 
true  to  the  government.  This  state  of  things  re- 
mained until  1814. 

REASONS  OF  WITHDRAWING  IT  IN  CONNECTICUT. 

In  the  spring  of  this  year,  (1814,)  a  petition  was 
presented  to  the  Legislature  at  Hartford,  asking  for 
a  charter  of  a  bank,  with  a  capital  stock  of  a  mil- 
lion and  a  half  of  dollars,  for  which  they  proposed 
to  pay  a  bonus  of  sixty  thousand  dollars,  which  was 

(Min.  Conv.  29.)  The  whole  number  of  Episcopalians  in 
the  state,  was  estimated  by  that  Convention,  in  1774,  at 
9,966,  (p.  63,)  which  was  probably  less  than  half  of  the  real 
number,  as  in  1784  we  find  Bishop  Seabury  estimating  them 
at  20,000. 


134  PURITANISM 

to  be  given,  if  the  Legislature  saw  fit,  to  Yale  Col- 
lege, the  Medical  College,  and  the  Bishop's  Fund. 
This  petition  passed  the  lower  house,  but  was 
rejected  in  the  upper.  Some  time  after,  a  charter 
substantially  like  the  one  asked  for  passed  both 
houses,  requiring  a  bonus  of  fifty  thousand  dollars. 
At  the  same  session,  twenty  thousand  dollars  of  the 
bonus  was  granted  to  the  Medical  College.  The 
upper  house  also  voted  ten  thousand  dollars  to  the 
Bishop's  Fund,  which  was  refused  by  the  lower 
house.  In  the  fall  of  the  same  year,  a  similar  ap- 
propriation was  made  in  the  upper  house,  but  lost  in 
the  lower.  A  similar  vote  passed  the  upper  house 
in  the  spring  of  1815,  but  was  again  lost  in  the 
lower  house.  In  the  fall  of  the  same  year  the  upper 
house  wheeled  about,  and  voted  down  the  appropria- 
tion by  the  same  majority  which  they  had  given 
before  in  its  favor. 

CHARACTER  OF  THOSE  REASONS. 

Now,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  lower 
house,  which  uniformly  voted  against  the  ten  thou- 
sand dollars  for  the  Bishop's  Fund,  did,  in  the  first 
instance,  pass  a  charter,  which  made  a  similar  ap- 
propriation for  the  same  purpose.  At  the  same 
session  both  houses  voted  twenty  thousand  dollars 
to  the  Medical  College,  "  in  pursuance  of  the  Act 
incorporating  the  Phoenix  Bank ;"  and  the  upper 
house  voted  ten  thousand  dollars  to  the  Bishop's 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  135 

Fund,  at  three  consecutive  sessions,  upon  the  same 
principle.  The  grounds  upon  which  the  claim  of 
the  Episcopalians  was  put  off  in  the  lower  house, 
was,  at  first,  that  the  country  was  at  war,  and  the 
funds  of  the  treasury  low.  After  the  peace,  when 
this  ground  could  be  urged  no  longer,  they  told 
Churchmen  in  plain  terms  that  they  should  not  have 
the  money. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE    TOLERATION  PARTY. 

Thus,  money  which  had  been  paid  into  the  State 
treasury,  in  a  great  measure  by  Churchmen,  with 
an  implied  condition  that  a  portion  of  it  should  be 
applied  to  the  Bishop's  Fund,  the  right  to  which  had 
been  three  times  directly  acknowledged  by  the  up- 
per house,  and  indirectly, -twice  by  the  lower  house, 
was  withheld  from  those  to  whom  it  justly  belonged, 
in  a  manner  directly  calculated  to  rouse  every  spark 
of  indignation  which  might  be  lurking  in  their  bo- 
soms. This  course  of  duplicity  was  ably  exposed 
by  a  writer  in  the  Connecticut  Herald,  published  at 
New-Haven,  soon  after  the  rising  of  the  Assembly, 
under  the  significant  name  of  Toleration,  which 
from  that  moment  became  the  title  and  watchword 
of  a  party. 

SUCCESS NEW  CONSTITUTION. 

And  now  the  whole  body  of  Episcopalians,  who 
had  heretofore  submitted  to  all  the  impositions  of 


196  PCRITAMSM 

the  standing  order,  disgusted  with  the  treatment 
their  petitions  had  received,  and  goaded  by  those 
who  had  refused  them  justice,  felt  called  upon,  in 
self-defence,  to  assert  their  rights  against  the  gov- 
ernment. Consequently,  in  1816,  they  formed  a 
new  party,  called  the  Toleration  Party,  which  re- 
ceived so  many  accessions  from  the  Baptists,  Me- 
thodists, and  Democratic  Congregationalists,*  as  to 

"  Those  only  who  lived  at  the  time,  or  have  carefully  stu- 
died the  history  of  New-England,  from  1796  to  1818,  can 
imagine  how  ready  they  would  bo  to  do  this.  The  case  of  a 
single  individual  must  suffice  as  an  example  and  illustration 
of  the  spirit  of  that  period.  The  Rev.  Stanley  Griswold,  a 
Congregational  minister  of  New-Milford,  embraced  demo- 
cratic sentiments,  and  immediately  his  character  became 
suspicious,  and  stories  of  every  sort  were  reported  concerning 
him.  In  1797,  those  brethren  who  composed  the  Associa- 
tion of  the  south  part  of  Litchficld  county,  secretly  concocted 
charges  against  him,  and  without  any  previous  steps  of  dis- 
cipline, and  without  ever  intimating  to  him  that  they  had 
aught  against  him,  arraigned  him  before  their  own  body,  to 
answer  to  charges,  of  which  he  was  wholly  iirnorant  until  the 
service  of  the  citation,  about  three  weeks  before  the  trial. 
Mr.  G.  denied  the  propriety  of  their  course,  and  their  juris- 
diction in  the  case,  but  sent  to  the  Association  a  written  an- 
swer to  the  charges  against  him.  This  letter  the  Associa- 
tion refused  to  receive,  returned  without  opening  it,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  vote  him  out  of  their  body,  without  hearing  or  trial, 
with  the  full  knowledge  that  his  defence  was  within  their 
reach,  and  against  the  solemn  protest  of  the  church  and  con- 
gregation against  the  doings  of  that  body. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  137 

constitute  the  majority  in  1817 ;  and  in  1818  a  Con- 
vention was  called  to  frame  a  Constitution,  in  which 
were  some  of  the  most  prominent  Episcopalians  in 
the  State.  The  instrument  drawn  up  by  that  body 
separated  entirely  Church  and  State,  abolishing  the 
last  relic  of  a  religious  establishment.*  When  it 
was  presented  to  the  people,  it  received  the  votes  of 
every  Episcopalian  but  two  that  voted  on  the  sub- 
ject.-]-  We  see,  therefore,  that  Dr.  Bacon's  state- 
ment, that  the  Congregationalists  made  that  change, 
must  be  received  with  many  qualifications. 

CONNECTICUT  "  BLUE  LAWS  " OUR  AUTHOR'S 

ACCOUNT. 

The  subject  of  the  "  Blue  Laws,"  is  one  on 
which  our  author  is  particularly  sensitive.  Thus, 
he  says,  (p.  17,)  "  How  many  people  in  these  Uni- 
ted States,  and  even  here  in  our  midst,  confidently 
believe  that  the  famous  code  entitled  Blue  Laws  of 
Connecticut,  once  had  a  place  among  the  statutes 
of  this  Colony.  Yet  our  fathers  knew  nothing 
about  them.  They  are  a  sheer  fabrication,  for 

*  This  constitution  separated  entirely  the  legislative,  exe- 
ecutive,  and  judicial  departments  of  government,  and  created 
the  first  independent  judiciary  in  Connecticut. 

*  So  the  author  was  told  many  years  since,  by  the  late 
Burrage  Beach,  Esq ,  of  Cheshire,  who  was  cue  of  the  two 

that  voted  agaiust  it 

7* 


138  PURITANISM 

which  the  world  is  indebted  to  Peters'  History  of 
Connecticut,  the,  work  of  an  Episcopal  clergyman." 
And  again,  (p.  406,)  "They  talk  about  that  mass  of 
impudent  forgeries  so  often  set  forth,  and  so  exten- 
sively believed — the  'Connecticut  Blue  Laws'— 
just  as  though  the  code  set  forth  under  that  name 
had  once  a  real  existence,  as  a  part  of  the  Connecti- 
cut laws.  The  wonder  is,  that  the  very  name  of 
Blue  Laws  does  not  blister  the  tongue  of  every  Pre- 
latist,  when  he  remembers  the  origin  of  that  lying 
history,  in  which  the  code  of  Blue  Laws  had  their 
first  introduction  into  the  world."* 
*  ^ 

HIS  DESCRIPTION  DOES  NOT  APPLY  TO  PETERS. 

One  who  understands  the  facts  in  regard  to  this 
subject,  cannot  help  pitying  the  man's  ignorance, 
and  smiling  at  his  folly.  In  the  first  place,  the 
"  code  "  of  laws  published  under  the  title  of  "  Blue 
Laws  of  Connecticut,"  "  were  nothing  more  than 
the  early  laws  of  Connecticut,  and  which  did  not 
contain  a  single  law  known  anciently  as  a  Blue 
Law."f  And  that  "  code,"  instead  of  being  the 
"  fabrication  of  an  Episcopal  clergyman,"  was  com- 
piled by  a  Congregational  layman.  In  the  next 
place,  the  "  Blue  Laws  "  published  by  Peters,  ac- 

*  An  account  somewhat  similar  to  this  is  given  by  Profes- 
sor Kingsley,  Hist  Disc.  104 — 108. 
t  Fref.  vii.  Hiumau's  Blue  Law*. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  139 

cording  to  his  own  account  of  the  matter,  were 
never  digested  into  a  "code,"  and  "were  never  suf- 
fered to  be  printed."*  Now,  New-Haven  was  first 
settled  in  1638,  and  the  first  code  of  laws  published 
by  the  Colony,  was  that  of  Governor  Eaton,  in 
1656.  Of  course  the  account  of  Peters  must  be 
limited  to  these  eighteen  years,  from  1638  to  1656. 
The  synopsis  which  he  gives,  and  gives,  too,  from 
memory,  includes  forty-jive  brief  heads,  one-fourth 
of  which  are  merely  political  regulations,  and  such 
as  are  not  ordinarily  placed  upon  the  statute  book, 
most  of  which  are  known  to  have  existed  at  New- 
Haven.  Another  quarter  of  these,  are  substantially 
the  same  as  the  enactments  of  Gov.  Eaton's  code  of 
1656.  One-half  the  laws  which  Peters  gives,  there- 
fore, are  faithful  representations  of  the  regulations 
of  the  New- Haven  Colony,  at  that  early  period. 
Some  other  regulations,  similar  to  those  described 
by  Peters, -must  have  existed  at  that  time,  as  is  evi- 
dent  from  the  judicial  records  of  the  Colony.  So 
much  for  this  "  mass  of  impudent  forgeries,"  which 
"  ought  to  blister  the  tongue  of  any  Prelatist." 

ARE  MTJCH  OLDER  THAN  THE  TIME  OF  PETERS. 

But  our  author  seems  to  know  as  little  of  the  his- 
tory as  of  the  character  of  the  "  Blue  Laws."  He 
supposes  them  to  have  been  "the  fabrication"  of 

*  Pet  His.  97. 


140  PCHITAMSM 

Peters,  and  to  have  "had  their  first  introduction 
into  the  world  "  in  his  "  lying  history."  The  first 
edition  of  Peters1  History  of  Connecticut  was  pub- 
lished in  England,  in  1781.  Consequently,  if  our 
author's  history  be  true,  no  one  could  have  heard  of 
the  "  Blue  Laws  "  before  1781.  And  yet  the  Hon. 
William  Smith,  who  was  graduated  at  Yale  College 
in  1745,  thirty-six  years  before  the  publication  of 
Peters,  says,  that  when  he  visited  New-Haven,  as 
one  of  the  Commissaries  from  New-York,  in  1767, 
fourteen  years  before  the  publication  of  Peters,  he 
requested  to  sec  the  "  Blue  Laws,"  and  that  instead 
of  finding  them  to  "consist  of  many  large  volumes," 
as  they  had  been  represented,  "  a  parchment  cover- 
ed book,  of  demi-royal  paper,  was  handed  him  for 
the  laws  asked  for,  as  the  only  volume  in  the  office 
passing  under  this  title."*  This  testimony  to  the 
belief  in  the  existence  of  these  laws,  near  half  a 
century  before  the  time  of  Peters,  and  that  of  a  man 
who  had  lived  some  time  in  New-Haven  itself,  may 
possibly  serve  to  relieve  Churchmen  from  the  odium 
of  participating  with  Peters  in  the  sin  of  their  "fab- 
rication." What  gave  rise  to  the  story  of  the  "  Blue 
Laws,"  no  one  can  now  tell ;  but  one  thing  is  per- 
fectly certain,  that  Churchmen  had  nothing  to  do 

*  How  onr  author  could  be  ignorant  of  these  facts,  if  he 
consulted  the  books  he  quotes,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine.  See 
N.  Y.  Hist  Col.  Vol.  IV.  in  King.  105. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  141 

with  "  fabricating  "  either  the  laws,  or  the  story  of 
their  existence.  If  our  author  should  be  visited 
with  the  judgments  be  would  invoke  upon  Church- 
men, he  will  receive  our  pity,  although  it  might  re- 
lieve us  for  a  time  from  his  abusive  slanders. 

"THE  TABLES  TURNED " — EPISCOPACY  IN  VIRGINIA. 
Our  author  has  a  section  with  this  emphatic  head- 
ing, "  The  Tables  Turned,"  in  which  he  attempts 
to  show,  that  when  "American  Prelacy  "  "  had  the 
power,"  she  was  even  less  tolerant  than  the  Puri- 
tans. His  first  evidence  is,  that  in  1618  a  law  was 
enacted  in  Virginia,  requiring  every  one  to  attend 
church  on  Sundays  and  Holy  Days,  or  "  to  lie  neck 
and  heels  one  night,"  or  be  "  a  slave  to  the  Colony 
a  week ;"  for  a  second  offence  a  month  ;  and  for  a 
third  a  year  and  a  day.  But  it  does  not  appear  that 
this  law  applied  to  any  but  Churchmen.  His  sec- 
ond is,  that  in  1642  a  law  was  enacted,  forbidding 
any  but  Episcopal  clergy  officiating  in  the  Colony, 
(p.  403,)  while  Presbyterianism,  as  our  author  tells 
us,  first  appeared  in  Virginia  a  century  after,  in 
1743.  Its  first  preacher  was  a  Mr.  Robinson,  whose 
labors,  our  author  says,  produced  many  inquirers. 
He  then  proceeds — "  The  celebrated  Messrs.  Ten- 
nent  and  Finley,  obtaining  license  of  the  Governor, 
began  to  preach  to  those  inquirers  in  1745." — (p. 
403.)  Here,  then,  was  the  intolerance  of  Episcopal 
Virginia — no  Presbyterian  minister  could  officiate 


142 

there  without  license.  And  this  only  two  years 
after  the  passage  of  the  obnoxious  law.  Let  us  see 
how  these  same  men  fared  in  Puritan  Connecticut. 

CONNECTICUT  AND  VIRGINIA MR.  FINLEY. 

In  1739,  a  portion  of  the  Congregational  Society 
in  M ilford,  withdrew,  and  forming  themselves  into 
a  Presbyterian  Society,  procured  this  sajne  Mr. 
Firdey  to  preach  to  them  ;  for  which,  in  1740,  he 
was  arrested,  tried,  found  guilty  of  vagrancy,  and 
transported,  as  a  vagrant,  from  town  to  town,  until 
he  was  out  of  the  limits  of  the  Colony.  He  peti- 
tioned the  Legislature  for  redress,  but  it  would  not 
listen  to  his  petition.  He  went  from  Puritan  Con- 
necticut,  branded  as  a  vagrant,  to  Episcopal  Vir- 
ginia, where  he  was  received  as  a  minister,  licensed, 
and  permitted  to  preach  unmolested.* 

PENNSYLVANIA  AND  VIRGINIA MR.  TENNENT. 

The  same  Mr.  Tennent  visited  Connecticut  in 
1749,  but  confining  himself  entirely  to  those  towns 
where  he  was  invited  by  the  "  New  Light  "  minis- 
ters of  the  "  standing  order,"  the  "orthodox  "  Puri- 
tans were  unable  to  lay  their  hands  upon  him.f 

t  Trumb.  II.  177.  Allen's  Biog.  Die.  386.  Ecc.  Rec. 
Conn. 

t  One  of  the  publications  against  him  was  entitled  "  The 
Examiner  t  or  Gilbert  against  Tennent"  by  Rev.  John  Han* 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  143 

Had  he  not  done  this,  he,  too,  would  have  been 
transported  from  the  Colony  as  a  vagrant.  As  it 
was,  he  was  publicly  censured  by  the  Synod  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, of  which  he  was  a  member,  for  his  vio- 
lence and  uncharitable  ness.  In  1745  he  went  to 
Episcopal  Virginia,  with  the  hatred  of  Puritan 
Connecticut,  and  the  censure  of  Pennsylvania  Pres* 
byterianism,  and  was  there  licensed  to  preach. 

CONNECTICUT — "MESSRS.  POMEROY  AND  OWEN. 

We  may  also  mention,  that  the  Rev.  Benjamin 
Pomeroy,  of  Hebron,  was  brought  before  the  Legis- 
lature of  Connecticut,  for  a  similar  cause,  found  guil- 
ty of  disrespectful  language  towards  the  authorities, 
in  regard  to  their  persecutions,  deprived  of  his  sal- 
ary, put  under  bonds  for  good  behaviour,  and  com- 
pelled to  pay  £32  10s.  6d.  costs  of  prosecution. 
The  Rev.  John  Owen,  of  Groton,  was  also  arraign- 
ed before  the  same  body,  for  the  same  cause,  but  let 
off  upon  paying  the  costs  of  prosecution. 

EPISCOPACY  IN  NEW- YORK. 

The  remainder  of  our  author's  evidence  of  the 
vindictive  spirit  of  American  Prelacy,  relates  to 

cock,  of  Braintree,  Mass.,  (1743,)  a  man  who  sympathized 
strongly  with  the  majority  of  Connecticut  ministers,  and 
which  Rev.  Dr.  Chauncy,  of  Boston,  announced  to  Rev.  Mr. 
Chauncy,  of  Durham,  as  "  well  calculated  to  do  service."— 
MS.  Lett  March  16, 1742-3. 


144  PURITANISM 

New- York,  and  consists  of  the  following  allegations 
— -facts  we  dare  not  call  them,  without  better  proof. 
That  the  Presbyterians  of  Jamaica,  L.  I.,  had  built 
a  church  and  procured  a  parsonage,  before  1702  ; 
that  the  Episcopalians  of  the  place  attempted  to  get 
the  church,  and  actually  got  the  parsonage  ;  that  the 
first  Presbyterian  minister  that  preached  in  New. 
York  was  arrested,  tried,  for  what  he  does  not  tell, 
and  obliged  to  pay  the  costs  of  prosecution  ;  that  for 
a  long  time  Presbyterians  were  obliged  to  pay  taxes 
to  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  for  years  they 
were  prevented  by  the  Episcopalians  of  New-York 
from  obtaining  a  charter  of  incorporation.* 

One  unacquainted  with  the  facts,  would  not  ob- 
tain much  idea  of  the  true  state  of  things  in  New- 
York,  from  the  representations  of  our  author.  The 
case  at  Jamaica  was  briefly  this.  A  tract  of  land 
had  been  set  apart  by  the  town,  in  1897,  for  a  par- 
sonage, and  in  1700  a  church  was  erected.  In 
1702,  the  Governor,  Lord  Cornbury,  took  up  his 
residence  there,  and  occupied  the  parsonage  during 
his  stay.  AVhen  he  left,  instead  of  delivering  pos- 
session to  the  Presbyterian  minister,  he  gave  it  to 
the  Episcopalians,  who  had  then  become  quite  nu- 

*  The  opposition  which  our  author  charges  upon  the  Epis- 
copalians of  New-York,  was  at  the  time  charged  upon  the 
"  Bishop  of  London."  Chauncy  Ans.  to  Chad.  Appeal,  p. 
187.  Appeal  Dei.  333. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTEST ANTISM.  145 

merous,  who  claimed  it,  or  a  right  in  it,. as  public 
property.  The  whole  affair  seems  to  have  origina- 
ted with  the  Governor,  and  all  that  was  done  was 
under  his  protection,  and  probably  at  his  instigation. 
The  whole  transaction  is  in  pretty  good  keeping 
with  that  relating  to  the  New-Haven  Gregson  Glebe, 
which  we  shall  add  as  a  counterpart 'of  the  story. 

As  to  the  affair  of  the  Presbyterian  minister's 
imprisonment,  we  have  no  positive  evidence  ;  but  it 
seems  to  be  one  of  the  cases  in  which  Lord  Corn- 
bury  caused  the  minister  to  be  imprisoned  for 
preaching  without  license,  and  against  the  wish 
of  the  Presbyterian  congregation  there,  at  the  re- 
quest of  a  single  individual.  The  application  of  the 
Presbyterians  in  New- York  for  a  charter,  A.  D. 
1759,  which  our  author  says  was  "  defeated  by  the 
strenuous  opposition  of  the  Episcopal  Church,"  was 
at  the  time  attributed  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  not- 
withstanding the  Board  of  Trade  reported  that  it 
was  against  general  policy  to  grant  them  greater 
privileges  than  were  allowed  by  the  Act  of  Tolera- 
tion ;  and  it  was  held  to  be  contrary  to  the  corona- 
tion oath.  But  these  are  exceedingly  small  matters, 
and  only  worthy  of  notice,  as  showing  our  author's 
want  of  knowledge,  or  candor,  on  every  point  in 
debate. 

NEW-HAVEN  GREGSON  GLEBE. 

This  is  one  of  the  subjects  which  has  been  im. 


146 

mortalized  by  Peters,  and  as  he  tells  the  story,  is 
about  as  near  the  truth  as  our  author's  account  of 
the  Presbyterian  persecutions.  Indeed,  we  know 
of  no  two  authors  more  alike  than  Peters  and  Hall. 

The  account  of  Peters  is,  in  brief,  that  Mr.  Greg, 
son  came  and  settled  at  New-Haven,  but  not  being 
pleased  with  all  things  there,  advertised  his  property 
for  sale,  when  he  found  he  could  not  sell  it  without 
permission  of  the  civil  authorities,  and  that  this  could 
not  be  obtained ;  that  he  then  made  a  will  and  sailed 
for  England,  but  died  on  the  passage  ;  that  the  will, 
which  contained  a  devise  for  the  support  of  an  Epis- 
copal clergyman  in  New-Haven,  was  proved  and 
recorded  ;  and  that  afterwards,  the  leaves  of  the  re- 
cord, where  it  was  recorded,  were  carefully  glued 
together,  and  not  discovered  until  1768,  when  Peter 
Harrison,  Esq.,  discovered  it,  and  immediately  com- 
menced suits  for  the  recovery  of  the  land ;  and  that 
when  the  occupants  found  how  things  were  situated 
they  resigned  the  lands  to  the  Church. 

This  account  is  very  far  from  the  truth.  But 
there  was  something  out  of  which  to  make  the  story; 
— more,  it  would  seem,  than  Professor  Kingsley 
supposed,  (Hist.  Disc.  87 — 90) — something  which 
goes  to  qualify  the  epithet  of  "  stupendous  falsehood," 
applied  to  it  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bacon.  This  will 
appear  from  a  detail  of  facts,  relative  to  the  land  in 
question.  The  statement  is  compiled  from  authen- 
tic manuscript  documents  now  in  existence. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.       147 
DETAIL  OF  FACTS  RELATING  TO  IT. 

THOMAS  GREGSON  was  one  of  the  original  set- 
tlers of  New-Haven,  being  there  in  1639  if  not  in 
1638.  In  1643,  his  family  consisted  of  six  persons, 
and  his  list  amounted  to  £600.*  When  he  died, 
he  gave  all  his  property  to  his  wife  JANE,  to  be  dis- 
posed of  at  her  discretion.  She  died  in  1691,  ma- 
king a  will,  and  giving  the  property  now  known  as 
the  Glebe  in  New-Haven,  to  her  daughter  DANIELS, 
during  her  life,  and  then  to  RICHARD  GREGSON,  her 
son,  who  had  long  resided  in  London,  and  in  case 
of  his  death,  to  his  son,  if  any. 

WILLIAM  GREGSON,  SEN.,  son  of  Richard,  born 
in  1670,  died  1735,  inherited  the  property  willed  to 
his  father,  Richard,  by  his  grandmother,  Jane.  In 
1707,  Joseph  Whiting,  of  Hartford,  (son  of  Rev. 
John  Whiting,  of  Hartford,  and  Phebe  Gregson,  his 
wife,)  wrote  to  his  cousin,  William  Gregson,  giving 
him  a  depreciating  account  of  the  land  here,  and 
asking  him  [W.  G.]  to  give  him  [J.  W.]  the  prop- 
erty. But  Gregson,  who  had  received  a  different 
account  of  the  property,  both  as  to  quantity  and  qua- 
lity, imagined  that  Whiting  was  dealing  dishonestly 
with  him,  and  saying  so,  gave  offence  to  Whiting 
and  his  friends. 

*  Mr.  Bacon  says  he  died  at  sea,  1646.  Hist.  Disc.  313. — 
Prof.  Kingsley,  that  he  sailed  for  England  1647.  Hist.  Disc. 
89. 


148  PURITANISM 

WILLIAM  GREGRON,  Jr.,  was  born  in  1699,  and 
lived  in  London,  as  did  also  his  father. 

In  1716,  ttncnlyjlvc  years  after  the  settlement  of 
the  last  will  and  testament  of  Jane  Gregson,  this 
Joseph  Whiting  somehow  contrived  to  obtain  letters 
of  administration  on  the  estate  of  Thomas  Gregson, 
who  had  then  been  dead,  according  to  Mr.  Bacon, 
seventy  years,  and  administered  on  the  same  prop- 
erty disposed  of  by  Jane  Gregson  twenty-five  years 
before.  In  the  division  then  made,  the  same 
piece  of  property  was  again  set  to  Richard  Greg- 
son. 

Very  soon  after  this  the  property  of  Richard 
Gregson  was  entered  upon  by  Daniel  Thompson 
and  Joseph  Whiting,  who  took  possession  and  oc- 
cupied it  for  many  years.  In  1729,  William  Greg- 
son,  Sen.,  received  an  offer  for  the  land  from  Gov. 
Belcher,  but  the  difficulties  at  New-Haven  prevent- 
ed the  bargain. 

On  the  26th  of  March,  1736,  William  Grcgson, 
(the  second  of  the  name,)  made  a  deed  of  gift  of  the 
property  to  the  Rev.  Jonathan  Arnold,  the  mission- 
ary at  New-Haven,  and  his  successors  in  office,*  in 
trust  for  a  church  and  parsonage  in  that  town.  Mr. 
Arnold  was  also  authorized  and  empowered  to  settle 

*  The  only  church  then  in  New-Haven,  and  for  some 
time  after,  was  what  is  now  Christ  Church,  West-Haven,  o^ 
which  Mr.  Arnold  was  then  the  minister. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  149 

the  whole  matter,  and  furnished  with  the  requisite 
proof  and  papers.  After  Mr.  A.'s  return  to  Amer- 
ica, Whiting  contrived  to  obtain  clandestine  posses- 
sion of  Mr.  Arnold's  papers,  which  were  never  re- 
turned, and  he  was  not  allowed  to  search  the  records 
for  other  proof  in  regard  to  it.  He  applied  to  the 
public  authorities  for  redress,  but  could  procure  no 
aid. 

About  1740,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Arnold  sailed  for  Eng- 
land, as  is  supposed  on  this  business,  but  was  lost 
on  his  passage. 

In  May,  1765,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  the  stamp-master  of 
Connecticut,  was  in  England ;  and  while  there  he 
told  Mr.  Gregson,  who  had  requested  him  to  assist 
Mr.  Dyer,  of  New-London,  in  prosecuting  those 
who  had  entered  upon  Gregson's  land  in  New-Ha- 
ven, that  he  "  married  that  Mr.  Whiting's  daughter 
who  took  possession  of  Mr.  Gregson's  land  ;  that  he 
would  take  a  letter  to  Mr.  Dyer,  but  begged  to  be 
excused  from  assisting  in  any  other  manner,  as  it 
was  against  his  brother-in-law,  who  was  then  clerk 
of  the  records ;  said  he  had  searched  the  records, 
but  could  not  find  Gregson's  first  title." 

In  October  of  the  same  year,  (1765,)  Timothy 
Bonticu  and  Isaac  Doolittle,  Wardens,  and  Chris- 
topher Kirby  and  Stephen  Mansfield,  Vestrymen  of 
Trinity  Church,  New-Haven,  and  the  rest  of  the 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  New-Haven, 
received  a  deed  of  release  of  Enos  Ailing,  who  was 


150  FtTBITANlSH 

then  in  possession  of  the  "Glebe  ;"  and  in  October, 
1768,  William  Gregson  released  any  right  which 
he  might  then  have  to  the  same  property,  to  the 
same  persons. 

Both  these  cases  were  the  acts  of  individuals, 
by  which  the  respective  bodies  were  deprived 
of  their  just  rights — one  under  pretence  of  law, 
the  other  without  law — and  both  had  their  origin 
in  the  intolerance  of  the  age.  The  story  is  told 
merely  to  show  what  our  author  indirectly  denies, 
that  the  Puritans  were  men,  subject  to  like  passions 
as  other  men,  and  when  opportunity  offered  guilty  of 
the  same  acts  of  which  they  so  loudly  complained  in 
others. 


APPENDIX. 

NOTE  A. 
LUTHERAN  CHURCH  AND  THEOLOGY. 

SYMPATHY    OF   THE    REFORMERS. 

That  a  much  stronger  sympathy  existed  between  the 
English  and  Continental  Reformers,  especially  those  of  Ger- 
many, than  has  ever  existed  between  the  Churches  in  the 
two  countries  at  any  later  period,  every  one  conversant  with 
the  history  of  both  will  readily  allow.  But  the  reason  for  the 
decline  of  this  feeling  seems  not  to  be  well  understood ;  though 
it  must  be  obvious  to  those  who  consider  the  history  of  both 
bodies  carefully.  The  fact,  however,  of  this  change  of  sen- 
timent, is  a  fruitful  theme  of  declamation  on  the  part  of  our 
author,  and  those  like  him,  who  desire  to  fix  upon  us  the 
charge  of  having  departed  from  the  faith  of  the  Reformers. 
It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  a  proper  understanding  of  this 
subject,  to  sketch  a  brief  outline  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
and  Theology,  in  order  to  show  why  this  sympathy  declined, 
why  it  has  never  revived,  and  why  the  Reformation  itself 
came  to  be  misunderstood,  through  Lutheran  misrepresenta- 
tion of  it.  Our  remarks  are  confined  to  Germany,  because, 
notwithstanding  the  correspondence  kept  up  by  Cranmer  and 
some  others  with  Calvin,  and  the  great  respect  entertained 
for  him  among  other  eminent  foreigners,  no  real  sympathy 
existed  between  the  Church  of  England  and  Geneva.  That 
which  did  exist,  belongs  not  properly  to  the  Reformers  them- 
selves, but  to  the  generation  that  succeeded  them,  and  had 
respect  rather  to  doctrine  than  men  or  discipline. 

The  period  that  elapsed  between  the  publication  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  in  1530,  to  the  adoption  of  the  For* 


152  PURITANISM 

mula  of  Concord,  in  1580,  has  been  called  the  "  creative  pe- 
riod of  the  Lutheran  Church  "*  During  the  whole  of  this 
time  considerable  liberty  of  opinion  was  allowed  among  the 
Lutherans,  both  as  regarded  doctrine  and  discipline ;  t  for 
Luther  himself,  before  his  death,  became  considerably  soft- 
ened on  some  points  of  doctrine.  Mclancthon,  who  waa  Lu- 
ther's bo.«>m  friend  and  trusty  counsellor,  held  many  senti- 
ments to  which  Luther  would  not  assent,  especially  touching 
the  organization  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  being  willing* 
if  not  desirous,  to  retain  the  ancient  regimen.  He  also  differ- 
ed from  Luther  somewhat  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  faith 
and  works,  and  also  in  regard  to  the  importance  of  the  Sacra- 
mental controversy.}  After  the  death  of  Luther,  in  1 540,  to 
the  death  of  Mclancthon,  in  1560,  he  was  the  leading  Ger- 
man Reformer,  and  efforts  were  made,  both  by  him  and  his 
friends,  to  secure  greater  uniformity  of  sentiment  among  the 
reformed,  and  if  possible  to  bring  about  a  union  between 
them  and  the  Catholic  Church  of  Germany.^  Failing  in 
these  attempts,  and  being  persecuted  by  his  brethren  because 
of  them,  he  gladly  "  hailed  death  as  a  refuge  from  the  frenzy 
of  the  theologians."|| 

ENGLISH    REFORMATION  AND    MELANCTHON. 

It  was  after  the  death  of  Luther,  and  while  Melancthon 
was  "  the  head  and  leader  of  the  Theologians  of  the  Luthe- 

*  Schaf.  98. 

t  Pusey  I.  18—26.  Mucnsch.  133,  134.  Mosh.  III.  175—178. 

j    MH-||     HI.  1G5. 

§  Melauctlion  made  this  attempt  by  means  of  a  Conference  held  at 
Worms,  »o  lute  as  1527,  only  three  years  before  hi*  death;  but  was 
prevented  from  acconipliahing  any  thing  by  the  violence  of  the  parties. 
—Scott.  Luther,  and  Luth.  Ref.  II.  281.  Bur.  Rcf.  II.  453,  456. 

||  Bayle  Hist.  Crit.  Die.  IV.  137,  "a  rabie  Theolo^orum,"  were  his 
words  before  he  died,  as  one  of  the  reasons  why  he  ought  not  to  be 
lorry  to  die.  Pusey  1. 11.  Schaf.  120.  Life  Mclnuc.  Am.Encyc.  VIII.  392. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  153 

ran  Church,"*  that  English  Reformation  was  effected.  And 
no  foreigner's  opinions  had  as  much  influence  in  England  as 
Melanchthon's.  He  was  repeatedly  invited  to  England,  by 
Cranmer  himself;  and  even  the  King  wrote  in  his  own  name 
requesting  him  to  come.t  But  though  Melanchthon  could  not 
be  prevailed  upon  to  leave  Germany,  some  of  his  friends  and 
associates  were  obtained,  who  aided  essentially  in  the  work  of 
Reformation.  Now,  if  we  compare  the  doctrines  and  disci- 
pline of  the  two  Churches,  it  will  be  found  that  the  English 
and  Lutheran  differ  exactly  where  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
differed,  and  that  the  preference  is  always  given  to  the  opin- 
ion of  Melanchthon.  The  sympathy  of  the  English  Reformers 
would  therefore  have  been  with  Melanchthon  and  his  friends, 
rather  than  with  Luther  himself,  had  he  been  living ;  and 
hence  it  must  necessarily  follow,  that  the  sympathy  of  the 
English  Church  itself  would  be  with  the  Melanchthonian. 
school  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  These  points  of  sympathy, 
in  addition  to  those  which  necessarily  arose  from  their  being 
engaged  in  a  common  cause,  were  chiefly  preference  for  the 
primitive  regimen  of  the  Church,  milder  statements  of  doc- 
trine, with  moderate  and  cautious  measures  in  Reformation, 
so  as  not  to  rend  the  unity  of  the  Church. 

MELANCHTHONIAN  SCHOOL  OF  THEOLOGY— FORMULA  OF  CONCORD. 

These  opinions  seem  to  have  gained  ground  after  the  death 
of  Luther,  and  vigorous  measures  were  taken  by  those  who 
claimed  to  be  the  representatives  of  genuine  Luther anism,  to 
prevent  their  increase.  The  most  important  and  effective  of 
these,  was  she  Formula  of  Concord,  adopted  in  various  coun- 
tries, from  1576  to  1580,  which  was  composed  with  an  espe- 
cial reference  to  the  dangers  which  were  supposed  to  threaten 
pure  Lutheranism,  and  which  eventually  rooted  out  the 

*  Mosh.  III.  164,  f  Massingberd.  Eng.  Ref.  105. 

8 


154  PURITANISM 

echool  of  Melanchthon  from  the  Lutheran  Church.*  The 
Lutheran  Church  now  received  a  fixed  character,  beyond  all 
probability  of  change,  and  its  theology  was  shut  up  within 
the  narrow  limits  of  its  symbolical  books.  It  changed,  in 
fact,  the  character  of  the  Reformation.  Though  speaking 
the  words  of  Luther,  it  had  no  sympathy  with  his  free  spirit, 
nor  any  of  the  mild  and  cautious  prudence  of  Melanchihon. 
Thenceforward  it  "  appeared  under  the  guise  of  an  intricate 
scholastic  system,  and  breathed  a  narrow  sectarian  spirit."! 

NEGLECT  OF  EPISCOPACY  IN  GERMANY. 

There  was  another  circumstance  which  must  have  tended 
to  the  same  result :  a  strange,  and  in  some  respect*  an  unac- 
countable inconsistency  in  the  Continental  Reformers,  the 
fatal  effects  of  which  are  felt  to  this  day.  It  is  well  known 
that  these  men  never  pretended  to  seek  the  overthrow  of  the 
ancient  regimen  of  the  Church,  but  to  desire  its  restoration 
to  the  primitive  and  Episcopal  model,  for  which  they  always 
professed  great  respect.  And  it  has  been  supposed  that 
they  would  have  retained  it  had  it  been  possible.  But 
while  this  is  true  in  regard  to  some  individuals,  in  regard 
to  the  great  body  of  them  it  is  doubtful.  Once  committed  to 
an  error,  it  was  hard  to  break  away  from  it.  That  the  Epis- 
copal form  of  government  might  have  been  retained  in  Ger- 
many, and  would  have  been  retained  in  the  Arch-Diocese  of 
Cologne,  but  for  the  interference  of  the  civil  rulers,  is  evident 
from  the  history  of  Archbishop  Hermann,  who  was  ejected 
from  his  See  in  154G,  for  adopting  the  principles  of  the  Re- 
formation. He  lived  in  retirement  until  1552,  when  he  died, 
aged  eighty.  Also,  from  the  history  of  Frederic,  brother  of 
the  Archbishop,  and  Bishop  of  .Minister,  who  resigned  his 

*  Muensch.  133.  Moth.  III.  l~S.  Puscy  I.  20,  II.  368. 

t  Pusey  I.  21.  Schof.  130.  Muensch.  138.  Mosh.  III.  172—180. 


NOT    GENTTINE    PROTESTANTISM.  155 

See  in  1532,  and  died  in  1553.     He  lived  an  exile  in  his  own 
city,  dependant  upon  the  charity  of  its  citizens.* 

HERMANN'S  PLAN  OF  REFORMATION,  AND  THE  ENGLISH. 

Hermann's  scheme  of  Reformation,  drawn  up  by  Bucer, 
with  the  aid  of  Melanchthon  and  Pistorius,  and  carefully  re- 
vised by  the  Archbishop  himself,  was  substantially  that  pur- 
sued afterwards  in  England,  for  which  it  seems  to  have 
served  as  a  model,  as  it  wa»  translated  into  English,  and 
twice  published  in  London — the  last  time  in  1548.t  Had  that 
scheme  been  adopted  by  the  German  Reformers,  that  coun- 
try would  no  doubt  have  been  saved  many  of  the  dire  evils 
which  have  since  afflicted  it.  The  neglect  of  it,  and  of  the 
men  who  had  sacrificed  all  for  it,  could  not  fail  lo  produce  an 
influence  in  England,  when  the  time  carne  for  reflection  and 
consideration. 

NATURAL  DECLINE  OF  SVMPATHT. 

We  might  have  expected  that  this  state  of  things  would 
have  effectually  sundered  every  bond  of  sympathy  which  had 
heretofore  subsisted  between  the  two  Churches,  and  which 
naturally  arose  out  of  their  similarity  of  doctrine,  had  the 
Church  of  England  remained  precisely  where  it  was  in  the 
days  of  Edward  VI.  But  this  was  impossible.  Though  all 


*  Scott's  Luther  and  Luth.  Ref.  II.  142—152. 

t  Bayle's  Hist,  and  Crit.  Die.  Art.  Bucer,  II.  171,  with  Calvin  and  Vos- 
sius's  Epistles  ihere  quoted.  Scott,  149.  A  similar  rase  ofiiiconsistencjr 
occurred  in  France,  in  1561,  showing  the  Ibrce  of  custom,  when  once 
men  are  committed  to  an  error  which  their  judgments  at  first  con- 
demned. John  ntony  Carraccioli,  Bishop  of  Troyes,  publicly  em- 
braced Protestantism  in  1561,  whereupon  a  Convention  of  the  Clergy 
of  the  Hi-formed  Church  met  to  consider  his  case,  and  after  a  full  dis- 
cussion acknowledged  him  as  a  true  Bishop.  But  no  effort  germs  lo 
have  been  made  to  perpetuate  the  office.— Life  of  Carraccioli,  iu  Bayle, 
Hist.  Crit.  Die.  II.  313,  Note  A. 


156  PURITANISM 

the  great  principles  of  the  Church,  both  «f  doctrine  and  ritual, 
had  l>">-ii  established  by  the  Reformers,  it  required  time  to 
carry  them  out  in  all  the  details  of  their  practical  operation, 
and  without  this  they  could  not  be  judged  of  as  a  system. 
The  two  systems,  therefore,  would  prove  to  be  much  farther 
apart,  in  their  details,  than  they  had  seemed  to  be  from  the 
mere  statement  of  their  principles;  and  consequently,  the 
more  thoroughly  the  two  systems  were  developed,  the  lew 
ground  there  would  have  been  for  sympathy,  had  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  never  been  adopted. 

FORMfLA  OF  CONCORD ITS  EFFECT*. 

That  instrument  tended,  also,  not  only  to  extinguish  the 
sympathy  existing  between  the  two  bodies,  as  such,  but 
would  stand  in  the  way  of  its  revival,  so  long  as  it  remained 
the  authoritative  exponent  of  Lutheran  doctrine.  The  de- 
parture from  the  primitive  organization  of  the  Church,  which 
Melanchthon  deplored,  and  which  was  justified  at  first  only 
on  the  ground  of  necessity,  was  now  upheld  as  a  matter  of 
right ;  and  this  of  itself  would  have  prevented  official  minis- 
terial intercourse,  had  the  bonds  of  sympathy,  in  other  re- 
spects, been  ever  so  strong.  We  see,  therefore,  that  the 
decline  of  sympathy  between  the  Church  of  England  and 
the  foreign  Churches,  was  not  the  result  of  any  change  of 
opinion  on  the  part  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  of  the 
altered  circumstances  of  those  foreign  bodies ;  and  also  that 
the  same  cause  which  led  to  its  decline  has  prevented  its 
revival. 

LUTHERAN  MISREPRESENTATION  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

There  is  still  another  cause  why  this  sympathy  could  never 
revive,  arising -out  of  an  erroneous  estimate  of  the  Lutheran 
Reformation,  through  Lutheran  misrepresentation  of  it.  W« 
do  not  mean  by  this  that  there  has  been  any  intentional  mis- 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  157 

representation,  but  simply  that  the  Lutheran  Church  never 
has  been  a  true  representation  of  the  real  sentiments  of  Lu- 
ther even,  to  say  nothing  of  Melanchthon,  and  that  "her  theo- 
logians and  historians  have  seldom  presented  it  in  its  true 
light.  From  the  time  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  every 
theologian  was  shut  up  within  the  narrow  bounds  of  the  sym- 
bolical books,  and  no  man  was  permitted  to  go  beyond,  or  fall 
short  of  it  in  any  particular.*  The  consequence  was,  that 
ecclesiastical  history  became  comparatively  useless,  and  was 
very  generally  neglected,  and  thorough  and  independent  Bib- 
lical Exegesis  unnecessary,  if  not  dangerous.  Polemics 
usurped  the  place  of  theology,  and  for  a  century  most  of  the 
doctors  of  the  universities,  and  a  great  body  of  the  clergy, 
were  occupied  in  explaining  and  defending  the  tenets  and 
dogmas  of  the  Church.f 

SCHOOL  OF  THE  PIETISTS. 

It  must  be  obvious  that  persons  thus  engaged  could  neither 
exemplify  the  principles  of  religion,  nor  of  the  Reformation. 
Some  of  the  evils  arising  from  this  state  of  things,  the  Pie- 
tists, who  sprung  from  the  school  of  Spener,  (born  1629,  died 
1705,)  attempted  to  remedy.  But  though  they  saw  and  felt 
the  neglect  of  ecclesiastical  history  and  biblical  interpretation, 
they  did  not  pursue  them  with  sufficient  energy  or  accuracy 
to  gain  a  thorough  apprehension  of  them ;  and  the  school 
itself  either  degenerated  into  mysticism,  or  passed  over  into 
unbelief,  t  The  collisions  of  the  Pietist  and  orthodox  schools, 
however,  produced  some  men  of  eminence,  among  whom 

*  Pusey  I.  20-26.  Muensch.  133. 

tPusey  I.  26--40, 139-147;  II.  54-87, 119-127.  Mosh.  B.  IV.  cent. 
XVII.  §2.  Part  II.  c.  1;  though  the  latter  cannot  be  said,  in  every  respect, 
to  be  an  impartial  witness.  See,  also,  Schlegol's  Notes  on  the  same. 
Those  interpreters  of  this  period  who  still  retain  their  value,  either  be- 
longed to  the  school  of  JVIelauchthon  or  partook  of  its  mild  spirit. 

t  Pusey  I.  68-110. 


153  PURITANISM 

Mosheim  is  extensively  known  in  this  country,  through  his 
ecclesiastical  history.* 

SCHOOLS  OF  ER.NESTI   AND  SKMI.ER. 

But  these  efforts  were  not  without  effect,  as  they  ultimate- 
ly led  to  the  establishment  of  two  different  schools,  both  of 
which  have  ministered  largely  to  unbelief;  that  of  Ernesti, 
which  pursued  the  "grammatical,"  as  opposed  to  the  doc- 
trinal system  of  interpretation  ;  and  that  of  Semler,  which 
proposed  to  follow  the  "  historical  interpretation  "  of  the  sa- 
cred record.  The  principle  of  the  Reformers,  that  the  Bible 
was  to  be  its  own  interpreter,  includes  within  itself  the  reli- 
gious, historical,  and  grammatical  elements  ;  and  consequent- 
ly the  schools  of  Spener.t  and  Semler, t  and  Ernesti,  all 
failed  of  apprehending  the  true  Protestant  ground,  inasmuch 
as  they  pushed  (often  iguortuilly,  always  unscientifically,) 
one  element  to  an  extreme,  regardless  of  the  consideration 
due  to  the  other  two.§ 

*  Much  praise  is  due  to  tin*  author  as  a  historian,  since  he  was  the 
first  who  raised  ecclesiastical  history  in  Germany  above  the  charec- 
ter  of  a  chronicle,  (Pus.^y  I.  III..)  though  we  cannot  give  him  the  credit 
nl  III-IM.'  always  impartiul;  especially  ill  the  early  ages  of  the  Church. 
No  one  familiar  with  the  subject  can  read  a  chapter  touching  the 
Church,  without  seeing  the  bias  of  his  theological  opinions.  Nor  at  a 
later  period  can  he  always  be  trusted,  as  is  cle.tr  from  his  mutilation 
and  misrepresentation  of  St.  Elig.us,  Bishop  of  Noyon,  in  the  seventh 
century.  Coinp.  B.  II.  cent.  VII.  Part  ii.  c.  n.,  with  Waddington's  Chur. 
Hist.  141,  251.  There  is  also  a  gross  error  running  through  hiawork, 
that  has  done  a  vast  amount  of  mischief:  the  continued  miarepresen- 
tatioii  that  the  vices  of  the  early  clergy  led  to  the  degradation  or 
Christianity,  which  deepened  through  descending  centuries.  Pusey  (I. 
130.  It  is  high  time  he  was  laid  aside  as  authority  in  this  country,  M 
he  has  long  been  in  Germany.  Schaf.  IG6. 

t  Schaf.  99.   Pusey  I.  27,  81. 

{  Schaf.  100.  Pusey  I.  142.  143. 

$  Schaf.  1R3.  Pusey  I.  132. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  159 


SCHOOLS  OF  RATIONALISM. 

Out  of  this  state  of  things  arose  the  Rational'sm  of  Ger- 
many, whence  proceeded  its  Neology,  or  New  Theology,  the 
supporters  of  which  are  divided  by  Bretschneider*  into  four 
classes.  The  first  regard  all  revelation  as  superstition,  and 
JESUS  CHRIST,  (if  he  ever  existed,)  as  a  well  meaning  fanatic 
or  impostor.  These  were  the  lineal  successors  of  the  Eng- 
lish and  French  Deists  and  Infidels,  embracing  in  the  first 
instance  no  theologians  ;t  and  second,  those  who  regard  Chris- 
tianity as  a  sort  of  republication  of  natural  religion — allowing 
CHRIST  a  real  existence,  but  no  divine  authority — making 
him  a  sort  of  mystagogue.  To  this  class  belong  such  men  as 
Bahrdt,  Venturing  and  Brennecke,  among  the  theologians, 
and  Reimaur  and  others  not  of  the  clergy.  The  third  class 
are  those  which  especially  assume  the  name  of  Rationalists. 
These  allow  Christianity  to  be  a  divine,  benevolent,  and  po- 
sitive appointment  for  the  good  of  mankind,  and  that  the 
word  of  Goo  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  JESUS 
was  a  messenger  of  Divine  Providence  ;  but  deny  any  thing 
miraculous,  and  separate  that  which  they  regard  as  local  and 
temporary  from  that  which  they  consider  universal  and  per- 
petual in  Christianity.  To  this  class  belong  the  philosophers 
Steinbert,  Kant,  Krug  ;  and  among  theologians,  W.  A.  Tel- 
ler, Longer,  Thiess,  Henke,  J.  E.  C.  Schmidt,  DeWette, 
Paulus,  Wegscheider,  Rohr,  etc.  The  fourth  class,  who 
dislike  to  be  called  Rationalists,  but  are  in  reality  such,  allow 
the  Bible  and  Christianity  to  be  divine — in  a  higher  sense 
than  the  avowed  Rationalists — allow  "  a  revealed  operation 
of  the  power  of  GOD,"  but  "distinguish  between  the  Bible 
and  word  of  GOD,"  and  insist  upon  establishing  the  divine 

*  Bretschneider's  Ans.  to  Rose.  30—32. 

f  Strauss  Bruno  Baur,  and  Fuerbach,  seem  properly  to  belong  here. 


160  PURITANISM 

nature  of  Christianity  upon  internal  proofs,  rather  than  upon 
miracles.  To  this  class  belong  Doederlin,  Morus,  Reinhard> 
Armmon,  Schott,  Niemeyer,  Brctschncider,  &c. 

SCHOOL  OF  THE  BUPERNATt'RALIBTS. 

There  was  also  another  party,  which  Brctschneidcr  doea 
not  mention  by  name  :  the  remnant  of  the  old  Orthodox  Lu- 
therans, commonly  known  as  tho  Supernaturalists,  which  ho 
describes  as  being  very  small  in  numbers — the  greater  share 
of  clergy  and  laity  belonging  to  his  fourth  class — which  he 
dignifies  with  tho  name  of  "  Evangelical."*  Some  of  the 
men  whom  ho  reckons  as  belonging  to  this  clans,  were  once 
Supernaturalists ;  but  they  endeavored,  by  means  of  various 
compromises,  to  make  Christianity  as  agreeable  as  possible 
to  the  natural  man.  They  treated  about  peace — they  made 
concessions — they  retrograded  so  far,  that  iu  the  end  they 
fairly  fell  over  to  the  enemy's  side,  as  was  the  case  with 
Armmon,  Schott,  and  Bretschneider,  or  exchanged  names 
with  their  opponents,  and  became  Rational-Supernatnral- 
ists,  as  in  the  case  of  Reinhard.t  Some  of  the  peculiarities  of 
this''  Evangelical"  school,  may  be  inferred  from  Bretschnei- 
dcr's  representation  of  the  teaching  of  the  early  Church  ; 
for  he  says,  up  to  the  year  325,  we  find  nothing  of  the 
"  Trinity,  Original  Sin,  man's  inability  to  do  good,  or  the 
satisfaction  [atonement  ?]  of  CHIUST  ;"  \  assertions  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  reconcile  with  the  reputed  learning  of  those  men. 

NEW  LUTHER  SCHOOL. 

But  these  schools  have  had  their  day,  and  are  on  the 
decline.  The  half-infidel,  half-pantheistic  philosophies  of 
Schelling  and  Hegel,  led  the  way  to  a  restoration  of  the 

*  Bret.  35, 36.  t  Wingard,  183.  Schaf.  147. 

*  Reply,  32. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  161 

belief  in  the  Incarnation  and  Atonement,*  and  other  impor- 
tant doctrines,  naturally  followed  in  their  train ;  especially  a 
belief  in  a  unity  of  the  Church,  and  the  importance  and  effi- 
cacy of  the  Sacraments  Out  of  all  this  collision  and  dis- 
cussion, out  of  the  joint  influence  of  religion  and  philos- 
ophy, combined  with  various  other  causes,  has  arisen  a  new 
school  of  German  theology,  which  is  now  the  most  preva- 
lent. It  is  not  Rationalism,  but  orthodoxy  resuscitated,  with 
new  life  from  its  ruins.  With  the  decision,  power  and  fervor 
of  the  Old  Church  faith,  it  unites  more  scientific  freedom, 
greater  disentanglement  from  prejudice,  and  more  fullness 
and  roundness  of  method.t  But  we  must  not  yet  be  too 
sanguine  as  to  the  result.  The  whole  "  Evangelical  Church 
of  Germany  is  at  present  in  an  interimistic  state,  involved  in 
a  process  of  fermentation  and  transition,  which  brings  along 
with  it  necessarily  a  measure  of  uncertainty  and  experi- 
ment." t  Men's  minds  are  much  in  the  dark.  Philosophy 
holds  too  absolute  a  sway ;  and  often  a  philosophy  of  more 
than  a  doubtful  character.  The  language  of  its  theology  is 
too  human.  It  addresses  itself  too  much  to  the  man,  to  the 
neglect  of  the  Christian.  It  bows  too  obsequiously  to  hu- 
man reason.  §  Hence  why  it  is  that  the  writings  of  the  most 
orthodox  often  contain  things  which  cannot  fail  to  give  pain 
to  every  right  minded  Christian,  and  which  could  hardly  fail 


*  Schaf.  150.  The  philosophy  of  Schelling  has  its  chief  theological 
representation  in  Daub;  that  of  Hegel  inMarheinecke,  (Pusey  1. 115;) 
but  Rothe,  Dorner,  Martensen,  Hoffman,  and  Husse,  are  more  or  less 
ruled  by  it,  (Schaf.  148 ;)  Tholuck  is  half  a  convert  to  it,(Stowe.  Bib.  Rep. 
3d  Series,  I.  86  ;)  Heugstenberg  regards  it  as  the  very  concentration  of 
Atheism  and  falsehood,  (Stowe,  Ib.;)  while  Paulus  considers  that  it  only 
serves  to  make  darkness  more  visible.  (Stowe  lo.  I.  89.) 
t  Schaf.  147.148.  t  Schuf.  155. 

§  See  a  graphic  picture  of  the  present  state  of  things  iu  Germany,  by 
Professor  Stowe.  Bib.  Rep.  3d  Series,  I.  8G-96. 

8* 


16'2  PURITAMSM. 

to  minister  to  unbelief  if  transplanted  here,  whatever  may  be 
their  influence  at  home. 

Still,  amid  all  this  darkness  there  arc  signs  of  hope.  It 
breathes  the  free  spirit  of  Luther,  and  the  mild  spirit  of  Me- 
lanchthon,  associated  with  the  orthodox  sentiments  of  both, 
accompanied  by  truer  views  of  the  Church  and  the  Sacra- 
ments, the  importance  of  her  unity,  and  the  sin  of  schism, 
than  could  have  been  found  at  any  time  before,  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  With  these  men,  or 
rather  with  these  opinions,  Churchmen  can  again  have  sym- 
pathy, notwithstanding  their  erroneous  sentiments  in  regard 
to  the  form  of  the  ministry;  while  Mr.  Hall  and  his  asso- 
ciates, if  they  ever  come  to  understand  the  sentiments  of 
those  men,  will  regard  them  in  no  better  light  than  they  do 
us. 

But,  in  addition  to  this,  there  is  a  decided,  and  we  believe, 
an  increasing  wish  in  many  parts  of  Germany,  to  restore  the 
Episcopal  form  of  Church  government.  Sweden  always  has 
been  Episcopal,  in  fact  and  form.  Denmark  is  so  in  form, 
though  (probably)  not  in  fact.  In  Prussia  an  approximation 
has  been  made  to  Episcopacy  in  form,  and  so  late  as  1843 
the  periodicals  said  :  "  The  state  of  ecclesiastical  matters  is 
yet  unsettled  in  Prussia.  Whether  Presbytery  or  Episcopacy 
will  prevail  is  uncertain.  The  tendency  is  rather  towards 
the  latter,  and  that  High  Churcliism."*  And  Dr.  Schaf, 
who  may  be  regarded  as  representing  the  most  orthodox  the- 
ologians of  the  Evangelical  Church  of  Germany,  says:  "I 
huve  all  respect  for  the  Episcopal  system.  It  possesses,  in 
fact,  many  undeniable  advantages ;  and  by  its  antiquity,  be- 
sides, must  command  the  veneration  of  al!  who  have  any 
right  historical  fcel,ng."t  In  this  we  see  the  wish  of  Me- 
lauchthoa  revived,  and  may  we  not  hope,  about  to  be  realized. 

•  B.b.  Rep.  X.  [N.  8.]  43d.  t  Proi.  Principle,  126. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  163 


NOTE    B. 

NEANDER'S   DEFECTS  AS  A  CHURCH  HISTO- 
RIAN. 

The  great  reputation  which  Neander  has  obtained  as  a 
historian,  and  in  many  respects  justly,  renders  it  important 
that  those  who  follow  him  as  a  guide,  should  know  before- 
hand what  are  his  deficiencies,  and  where  he  cannot  be 
safely  trusted.  And  it  is  precisely  as  a  Church  historian  that 
his  opinion  has  the  least  weight,  and  this  because  of  his  er- 
roneous notions  in  regard  to  the  Church,  and  because  he  is 
deficient  in  Church  feeling.  In  the  history  of  the  Church, 
says  Rauch,  (Church  Historians  in  Germany — Bib.  Rep.  X. 
302,)  "  much  depends  upon  what  the  historian  understands 
by  the  Church.  His  notion  of  it  may  be  considered  his  fun- 
damental view,  upon  which  he  raises  the  superstructure  of 
his  history."  It  is  important,  therefore,  that  the  historian's 
views,  both  of  the  Church  and  its  doctrine,  be  sound ;  which 
is  more  than  can  be  said  of  Neander  on  either  point.  In  re- 
ligion he  belongs  to  the  school  of  Schleirmacher,  (Schaf. 
148,)  who,  according  to  Professor  Stuart,  (Bib.  Rep.  V.  266,) 
"aimed  too  much  at  system  and  theoretical  perfection, 

of  orderly  and  logical  analysis  and  development in 

obtaining  which  he  appears  to  have  occasionally  left  out  of 
sight  some  of  the  plain  and  practical  deductions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." *  In  philosophy  Neander  is  a  disciple  of  Jacob! , 
(Rauch,  Ib.  314,)  and  regards  faith  as  "  a  rational  instinct, 
a  knowing  from  immediate  feeling,  a  direct  perception  of  the 
supersensible,  without  any  intervening  proof." — (Murd.  Ger. 

*  And  whom  the  Rationalistic  Bretschneider  says  adopted  the 
"  Church  system,  in  order  to  cloak  a  philosophical  system  under  it." 
(Rep.  Rose.  36.) 


164  FUKITAMS3I 

Philos.  131.)  That  this  "feeling  differs  in  every  one,  and 
must  bo  peculiarly  characterized  in  each  Chrirtian,"  and  con- 
sequently would  be  cramped  and  impeded  in  its  development 
by  symbolical  books  and  confessions.  Hence,  with  him  "  it 
matters  little  whether  a  man  is  an  Arian,  a  Ncstorian,  or  a 
Calvinist,  if  he  be  only  pious."  He  is  opposed  to  any  estab- 
lished Church,  and  allows  no  constitution  to  it,  as  a  visible 
body.— (Rauch,  Ib.  313,  314.)*  In  the  language  of  th«  New- 
Englauder,  (II.  270,)  "  His  views  of  the  authority  of  certain 
books  in  our  Canon  of  the  Scripture,  and  on  some  topics  of 
dogmatical  theology,  would  not  harmonize  with  the  profes- 
sions and  sentiments  of  our  religious  community."  While, 
therefore,  Neander  has  great  learning,  and  thorough  ac- 
quaintance with  antiquity,  he  cannot  be  trusted  as  a  Church 
historian.  His  fundamental  view  is  more  or  less  erroneous, 
and  his  views  of  the  connection  between  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  Churches  altogether  faulty.  He  may  develope  the 
piety  of  individuals  well,  but  he  has  no  proper  idea  of  life  in 
the  Church.  He  may  describe  the  separate  parts  of  the 
system,  as  existing  independently  of  each  other,  but  he  can- 
not put  them  together,  so  as  to  show  the  proper  working  of 
the  whole  body.  He  must  ever  bo  deficient  as  a  Church 
liisloritin,  because  his  views  of  the  Church  must  ever  render 
him  deficient  in  proper  Church  feeling. — (Schaf.  ItiC.)  AIM! 
it  is  this  very  feature  of  his  work,  this  uiichurchly  view  of 
things,  that  recommends  him  so  .strongly  to  the  uiichurchly 
sects  of  our  own  country. 

*  Educated  as  a  Jew,  he  went  to  the  opposite  extreme,  as  indeed  hi* 
philosophy  would  be  likely  to  carry  him,  when  he  became  a  Christian. 
A»  he  formerly  failed  of  apprehending  the  rpirit  of  the  old  ditpensa- 
tion,  so  now  he  fails  of  apprphondipg  the  form  of  the  uew  ;  regarding 
the  former  as  altogether  "  outward  and  visible,"  the  latter  as  merely 
"internal  and  spiritual."  (Intd.  Colcman's  Prim.  Ch.  14.)  His  theolo- 
gical opinions  are  also  unsound. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  165 

These  defects  of  Neander  will  be  more  apparent  upon  con- 
trasting his  view  of  the  Church  with  the  more  orthodox  New 
Lutheran  views  of  the  present  day.  The  idea  of  the  Church, 
according  to  those,  is  to  be  found  in  the  GOD-MAN,  JESUS 
CHRIST,  it  being  founded  in  the  Incarnation  itself.  In  its 
divine,  ideal,  and  heavenly  nature,  it  is  eternal,  invisible,  and 
unchangeable.  In  its  human,  real,  and  earthly  nature,  it  is 
developed  in  time,  in  doctrines,  discipline,  and  rites,  and  is  the 
continuation  of  the  earthly  human  life  of  the  Redeemer,  in 
his  threefold  office  of  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  This  idea  of 
the  Church,  as  existing  in  CHRIST,  is  necessarily  that  of  a 
unity — a  icAoZe— without  difference  or  opposition.  The 
Church,  which  is  the  body  of  CHRIST,  is  Christianity — abso- 
lute in  its  nature,  sacramental  in  its  character — so  that  with- 
out the  Church  there  can  be  no  Christianity.  But  though 
the  idea  of  the  Church  implies  a  perfect  unity,  which  shall 
one  day  be  realized  in  its  outward  manifestation,  its  proper 
development  has  hitherto  been  impeded  by  the  circumstances 
by  which  it  has  been  surrounded,  so  that  its  true  unity  has 
never  been  fully  realized  since  the  primitive  age.  So,  too, 
though  Christianity  is  in  itself  the  absolute  religion,  and  in 
this  view  admitting  of  no  improvement,  its  manifestation  in 
the  world  has  not  come  up  to  the  perfection  of  the  original. 
The  apprehension  of  it  by  the  Church,  and  its  appropriation 
by  individual  Christians,  have  been  more  or  less  imperfect  or 
faulty  ;  so  that  the  world  has  seen  no  example  of  a  perfect 
Christianity  save  in  the  life  of  its  founder.  To  this  standard  of 
unity  and  truth  the  Church,  under  all  its  diversified  forms, 
and  amid  all  the  conflicts  through  which  it  has  to  pass,  both 
from  within  and  without,  is  constantly  advancing,  even  when 
it  seems  to  be  retrograding,  under  the  multiplied  evils  brought 
to  bear  upon  it.* 

-  Rauch.  Bib.  Rep.  X.  314—316.  Schaf.  177—180.  Hengstenberg,  in 
Note  C. 


1 66  PURITANISM 

But  Ncander'a  view  of  things  is  as  wide  as  possible  from 
this.  Ho  makes  the  idea  of  an  invisible  Church  the  principle 
of  historiography,  and  maintains  that  the  visible  Church  on 
earth  is  at  variance  with  this,  instead  of  being  a  development 
from  it.  Consequently,  the  visible  Church  bears  no  relation 
to  the  invisible,  being  the  product,  merely,  of  those  combina- 
tions of  opinions,  actions,  and  circumstances,  by  which  Chris- 
tians have  been  surrounded.  It  is  in  no  sense,  therefore,  a 
medium  of  grace,  and  consequently  he  can  conceive  of  no 
such  thing  as  life  in  the  Church.  Truth,  therefore,  is  to  be 
"  apprehended  "  by  individuals,  not  by  the  Church ;  and  to 
be  developed  in  the  history  of  individuals,  not  in  that  of  the 
Church.  What,  therefore,  we  have  been  accustomed  to 
regard  as  heresy,  is  mostly  the  peculiar  apprehension  of  re- 
ligious truth  by  particular  individuals,  modified  by  the  pecu- 
liarities of  position,  place,  circumstance,  and  temperament  of 
each.* 

With  the  former,  the  Church  is  (to  adopt  their  own  lan- 
guage) organic  ;  "  the  organism  of  CHRIST,"  and  the  princi- 
ple of  "  corporiety,"  or  that  of  organized  life,  is  the  law  of  its 
being — the  "  idea  "  t  existing  anterior  to  its  development — 

*  Ranch.  X.  314—316. 

tA  few  words  seem  to  be  necessary  concerning  the  seoie  in 
which  the  Germans  employ  the  term  idea,  especially  those  who 
•re  at  all  influenced  by  the  philosophy  of  Hegel,  as  out  of  it  arices 
the  doctrine  of  development.  They  do  not  use  it  to  signify  merely  the 
intellectual  apprehension  of  a  fact,  nor  to  signify  "  habitual  judg- 
ments "  in  regard  to  facts,  as  Mr.  Newman  supposes,  (Theory  Devel.  c. 
i.  §1.,)  but  to  denote  the  abstract  essence  of  an  entity  as.  it  exists,  t» 
and  of  itttlf;  that  generic  csscntia  which,  though  invisible  itself,  may 
be  seen  in  every  individual  development  These  developments  are  re- 
lated to  the  idea,  as  tpecie  to  genus.  Every  development,  therefore, 
must  partake  of  the  nature  and  essence  of  the  "idea  "  from  which  it  i* 
developed ;  and  no  single  development  can  ever  come  up  to  the  "  idea  " 
itself,  as  that  includes  all  specific  developments,  which  together  consti- 
tute the  genut.  Consequently,  we  cannot  learn  the  character  of  the 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  167 

the  whole  preceding  the  parts.  With  the  latter,  the  visible 
Church,  is  an  "  atomic  "  compound  of  independent,  (and  for 
this  purpose,)  isolated  individuals,  and  results  from  the  mere 
choice  of  its  individual  members.  With  the  former,  the  min- 
istry is  "  the  organ  of  CHRIST,"  knowing  itself  to  be  incorpo- 
rated in  the  "  organism  of  CHRIST,"  and  bearing  testimony 
from  out  of  the  common  life  of  the  Church.  With  the  latter, 
every  individual  Christian  is  "  a  private  organ  of  CHRIST," 
and  may  bear  testimony  from  out  of  the  particular  spiritual 
life  communicated  to  itself.  With  one,  each  individual  is 
united  to  the  body,  in  order  that,  by  virtue  of  such  union,  it 
may  partake  of  the  life  and  spirit  of  the  same.  According 
to  the  other,  each  individual  receives  life,  in  order  that  it 
may  be  qualified  for  companionship  with  other  living  individ- 
uals. 

"  idea  "  from  the  developments — of  the  genus  from  the  species — until 
all  specific  developments  are  known.  In  regard  to  Christianity  and 
the  Church,  we  have  the  "  idea"  itself,  in  the  GOD-MAN,  CHRIST  JE- 
SUS, made  known  in  Holy  Writ,  at  once  the  model  of  the  Church  and 
the  example  of  the  Christian,  and  the  truth  of  all  developments  is  to  be 
determined  by  their  correspondence  to  that ;  until  the  Gospel  shall  be 
fully  apprehended  by  the  Church,  and  its  influence  have  pervaded 
every  walk  of  life  and  every  department  of  society.  The  Romish  and 
Pantheistic  applications  of  this  doctrine  are  both  false  and  unscientific. 
Truly  applied,  it  is  the  foundation  of  all  that  is  true,  in  what  is  some- 
times called  the  sacramentaiity  of  nature,  by  which  is  meant  the  union 
of  the  Word  and  Element,  and  the  correspondence  of  the  external  and 
visible  with  the  invisible  and  spiritual. 


168  PURITANISM 


NOTE    C. 

NEW   LUTHERAN   VIEW   OF  THE    SACRA- 
MENTS. 

REV.  DR.  IIE.NGSTENiERO. 

We  have  already  seen  what  views  the  orthodox  Lutherans 
of  the  present  day  entertain  of  the  Church,  and  it  will  be  in- 
teresting to  see  what  are  their  opinions  in  regard  to  the  Sa- 
craments. For  this  purpose  we  shall  make  a  series  of  quota- 
tions from  two  living  orthodox  Lutherans,  whose  learning  and 
piety  entitle  them  to  the  highest  consideration.  Our  first 
quotations  are  from  an  article  in  Erangrlisch-Kirchrn  Zei* 
tung  for  March,  1846,  edited  by  Rev.  Prof.  E.  W.  Heng- 
stenberg,  D.D.,  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  New  Luth- 
erans, and  whose  name  is  familiar  to  the  theologians  of  this 
country.  The  article  is  entitled  "  The  mystery  of  Baptism." 
We  quote  from  a  translation  made  for  the  Irish  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Journal  for  May  and  June,  1846. 

"  THE    MYPTERY    OF    BAPTrsM. 

"  Every  evangelical  Christian,  who  has  been  baptized,  has 
herewith  been  also  gifted  with  the  desire,  and  placed  under 
the  obligation,  of  continually  searching  deeply  into  the  mys- 
tery of  holy  Baptism.  The  desire  each  must  feel  according 
to  the  measure  and  manner  of  his  calling,  if  he  does  not 
suppress  it  through  carelessness  or  through  design.  The 
obligiit\in  no  one  can  deny,  without  disowning  the  Baptism 
iiM-il.  which  lias  been  conferred  on  him. 

"  'A.i  1  dear  Christian  !  let  us  not  so  carelessly  regard  and 
treat  such  unutterable  gifts!  Baptism  is  surely  our  only 
comfort,  and  admission  to  all  divine  gifts,  and  into  the  Com- 
munion of  Saints.  May  GOD  assist  us!  Amen!' 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM  169 

In  Luther's  larger  Catechism  this  exhortation  is  repeated, 
pressingly  and  often :  '  Every  Christian  has,  therefore,  during 
his  whole  existence,  enough  to  learn  and  to  practice  in  refer- 
ence to  Baptism ;  for  he  has  continually  to  take  care  that  he 
firmly  believe  what  it  promises  and  confers,  viz.,  the  victory 
over  death  and  the  Devil,  Remission  of  Sins,  the  Grace  of 
GOD,  the  full  participation  of  CHRIST,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  with 
His  gifts.  In  fine,  it  is  so  superabundant,  that  if  feeble  na- 
ture could  reflect,  it  would  certainly  question  whether  the 
fact  could  be  true.' 

"  Our  Catechism  itself  introduces  us  to  the  mystery  of  holy 
Baptism,  which  no  baptized  person  can  exhaust.  The  Cat- 
echism directs  us,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  Scripture-doc- 
trine of  Baptism."  [Here  he  quotes  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Mark 
xvi.  16.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Col.  ii.  12.  Eph.  v.  25,  26.  1  Pet.  iii. 
21.  Tit.  Hi.  5—7.  Heb.  x.  21,22.  Gal.  iii.  27.  1  Cor.  xii.  13,; 
when  he  proceeds.] 

"  In  these  passages  a  good  lesson  is  given  to  each  for  his 
entire  life,  in  order,  as  Luther  says,  to  carry  on  the  work  of 
Baptism,  which  remains  with  us,  and  works  forward,  although 
the  Sacrament  itself  cannot  be  repeated." 

CHRISTIANITY  SACRAMENTAL. 

"  '  Without  controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness. 
GOD  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.'  '  The  word  was  made  flesh.' 
On  this  mystery  Christianity  depends.  Christianity,  on  this 
account,  is  essentially  sacramental;  for  a  Sacrament  im- 
plies this,  that  the  Word  comes  to  the  Element  (das  Wort 
zum  Elements  kommt.)  On  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation 
of  GOD  in  CHRIST  the  Christian  Church  is  founded — nay  more, 
the  very  marrow  of  the  Church,  the  innermost  mystery  of  the 
Church — the  Sacrament — for  the  Sacrament  is  the  real  ap- 
propriation (Leibhaftige  Aneignwng)  of  the  God-Man." 


170  PURITANISM 


O.NK  BACRAME-NT  IN  TWO  PARTS. 

"As  there  is  only  one  Church  of  CHRIST,  BO  also  there  is 
only  one  Sacrament.  B.it  as  the  one  universal  Church  com- 
prehends within  itself  several  degrees  and  divisions,  so  also 
the  Sacrament  consists  of  two  degrees  and  divisions,  each  of 
which  contains  the  Sacrament  whole  and  undivided:  'There 
is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  arc  called  in  one  hope 
of  oar  calling ;  one  LORD,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  GOD 
and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in 
yon  all ' — (Eph-  iv  4 — (>.)  One  body,  founded  on  one  be- 
lief in  one  Spirit,  in  one  Loan,  in  one  GOD  the  Father,  with 
the  Son  and  the  Spirit,  thro'i^h  one  Baptism.  The  Apostle 
Paul  names  only  one  Sacrament,  and  that  manifestly  Bap- 
tism ;  but  in  and  with  Baptism  al.-o  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Supper  (des  Ahendmabls.)  Baptism  is,  like,  the  Supper,  a 
communion  of  Christians  with  CHRIST,  and  with  the  body  of 
CHRIST,  which  is  the  Church — and  that,  too,  Sacramental 
Communion — Communion  through  the  Word  in  the  Ele- 
ment. 

"  In  Baptism,  also,  the  Supper  has  been  already  included, 
for  we  who  are  baptized  are  baptized  into  the  death  of 
CHRIST.  In  the  Supper,  the  baptismal  bond  is  also  renewed, 
for  '  the  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  com- 
munion of  the  blood  of  CHRIST?  The  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  CHRIST.'  " 

DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  THE  PARTS. 

"  CHRIST  is  in  both  Sacraments  undivided,  as  in  one.  The 
distinction  to  be  drawn  in  the  first  place,  amounts  only  to 
this,  that  the  Christian,  through  baptism,  enters  into  commu- 
nion with  CHRIST  and  his  body,  which  is  the  Church ;  there- 
fore, Baptism  can  only  once  be  administered  to  each  man : 
'  He  that  is  washed,  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  171 

clean  every  whit.'  In  the  Supper,  however,  his  pilgrimage 
is  continued  still  further  ;  and  at  each  participation  he  renews 
this  same,  communion,  until  he  partake  of  it  anew  with 
CHRIST  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Father.  The  second  distinc- 
tion is  this,  that  in  Baptism  the  Sacrament — or,  in  other 
words,  the  real  uniting  of  the  triune  GOD  with  man — comes 
to  the  man;  whilst,  in  the  Supper,  man  approaches  to  the 
Sacrament.  For  this  very  reason,  Baptism,  as  a  Sacrament, 
is  administered  Lnt  once  ;  while  the  Supper,  as  being  the 
renewal  of  the  baptismal  bond,  is  held  forth  to  us  as  often  as 
we  approach.  There  is  the  grace  which  hastes  to  meet  us — 
here  that  which  fully  prepares." 

REV-  DR.  MARTEXSE.V. 

Such  is  the  language  of  Hengstenberg's  Evangelical 
Church-Journal.  We  proceed  to  give  another  series  of  Ex- 
tracts from  the  same  paper,  not  original  with  it,  being  a  par- 
aphrastic translation  and  abridgment  of  a  little  work,  entitled 
"  Christian  Baptism  and  the  Baptist  Question,"  by  Rev.  H. 
Martensen,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  University 
of  Copenhagen.  The  extracts  already  made,  speak  the 
language  of  the  New  Lutherans  of  Prussia,  the  following 
may  be  regarded  as  representing  the  opinions  and  sentiments 
cf  those  in  Denmark ;  approved,  also,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Heng- 
stenberg.  It  will  be  seen,  that  both  Dr  Martensen  and  Dr. 
Hengstenberg  suppose  many  other  important  doctrines  to  be 
immediately  connected  with  Baptism." 

PLAN  OF  DR.  M.'s  WORK. 

"  The  little  work  [of  Dr.  M.]  is  divided  into  five  sections ; 
for  it  seeks  (always  with  respect  to  the  erroneous  doctrine  of 
Baptism)  to  prove,  from  the  idea  of  Baptism,  according  to 
Scripture — 1st.  That  Baptism  consolidates  the  Church,  pub- 
lic worship,  and  preaching  in  the  Church,  and  proportionably, 


172  PURITANISM 

the  faith  also:  2d.  That  it  is  essentially  designed  for  child- 
ren ;  and  besides  these,  for  such  persons  only  who  have  not 
been  baptized  as  children,  and  who  are  therefore  baptized  by 
way  of  addition — solely,  however,  on  the  supposition  that 
they  arc  related  to  it  as  children:  3d.  That  it  bestows  itself 
as  true,  in  other  words,  as  sacramental  Predestination  :  4th. 
That  it  is  the  Sacrament  of  Justification  and  Regeneration, 
and  consequently  already  contains  the  essence  (das  Weaen) 
of  Justification  and  Regeneration :  5th.  That  it  commences 
objectively  with  tho  Apostolic  Confession  of  Faith  :  and  sub- 
jectively in  Confirmation  is  put  into  action,  and  authenti- 
cated." 

BAPTISMAL  ELECTION  INTO  AN  ORGANIC   BODY. 

"  I.  What  the  personal  election  of  CHRIST  was  for  the 
first  band  of  disciples,  the  same  is  Baptism  for  the  succeeding 
community  ;  namely,  the  Divine  Act,  whereby  CHRIST  gives 
individually  to  his  Church  the  true,  the  eternal  beginning ; 
whereby  he  also  propagates  the  Church  in  the  unending 
course  of  the  method  of  Salvation.  And  this  Act  is  not  doc- 
trine, is  not  preaching,  but  a  Sacrament,  by  means  of  which 
CHRIST  pices  Himself  For  this  very  reason  must  the  Chris- 
tian preacher,  who  administers  tho  Sacrament  in  CHRIST'S 
name,  knnir  himself  to  be  the  organ  [or  minissteriiil  represen- 
tative] of  CHRIST;  and  as  such  he  can  only  know  himself  so 
far  as  he  is  himself  incorporated  in  the  organism  [or  organ- 
ized body]  or  CHRIST,  or  the  Church.  For  only  through  the 
[organic]  whole  (das  Game,)  is  CHRIST  related  to  the  indi- 
vidual ;  and  every  true  Communion  with  CHRIST  is  only  a 
Communion  with  Him  as  the  Head  of  the  Body." 

THE  CHURCH,  ACCORDING  TO  THE  8LCT8,  ATOMIC. 

"This  organic  idea  of  the  Church,  those  Sects  mistake, 
which  regard  the  Church  as  the  result,  as  the  product  only 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  173 

of  the  individual  members,  and  not  as  pre-assuming  their 
existence.  The  Sects  wish  to  produce  the  whole,  through 
an  atomic  [or  individual]  compound  of  its  [independent] 
parts;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  this  is  the  secret  of  Organ- 
ism, that  the  whole  precedes  the  parts ;  and  thus  the  Com- 
mnnion  of  Saints  precedes  the  existence  of  individual  mem- 
bers. But  to  this  Organism  the  Church  attains  through  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism,  by  means  of  which  she  places  Chris- 
tians, before  they  are  yet  conscious  of  it,  in  the  most  intimate 
relation  of  Communion  with  CHRIST,  and  among  themselves, 
just  as  each  individual  man  also  in  every  respect  is  placed 
(even  before  he  could  give  his  assent)  in  determined  rela- 
tions. The  Sacrament  of  Baptism  is,  therefore,  at  once  the 
opening  point  of  all  worship,  and  the  door  of  Faith." 

WORSHIP  AND  BAPTISM. 

"  Worship  is  to  be  understood  not  merely  as  the  service  of 
GOD,  or  as  Communion  in  order  to  edification ;  this  is  but 
one  side  of  worship,  according  to  which  CHRIST  is  only  its 
object :  according  to  the  other  side,  CHRIST  is  also  the  sub- 
ject of  worship  ;  it  is  He  who  founds  the  Communion,  who  is 
the  Eternal  High  Priest,  who  himself  is  present,  and  himself 
officiates  ;  the  King,  who  perceptibly  goes  through  the  ranks, 
and  causes  his  presence  to  be  felt.  This  conception  of  the 
eternal  Kingdom  is  precisely  that  fundamental  mystery  on 
which  the  Church  reposes." 

FAITH  AND  BAPTISM. 

"  In  the  same  degree  Christian  Faith  is  not  only  faith  on 
CHRIST,  but  also  (and  indeed  in  the  first  instance)  faith 
through  CHRIST  ;  and  for  that  very  reason,  in  the  third  place, 
faith  in  CHRIST.  In  this  manner,  faith  (according  to  its  Sac- 
ramental genesis}  comes  forth  from  Baptism,  in  which  it  is 
imparted  through  CHRIST,  within  his  Organism." 


174  PURITANISM 


PRKACIUNQ  AND  BAPTISM. 

"  When  it  is  written,  '  Faith  cometh  by  preaching,'  (flu* 
der  Predigt,)  by  this  statement  the  exoteric  side  of  truth  is 
in  the  first  place  laid  down.  For  it  is  added,  in  close  con- 
nection, '  Preaching  comes  by  the  word ' — (die  Perdigt 
kommt  an*  dem  Worte :)  this  is  the  esoteric  side  of  truth. 
Baptism  is  the  Word  in,  with,  and  under  the  water  sprinkled 
by  a  priestly  organ  of  the  Church.  It  is,  however,  certainly 
not  the  final  commencement  of  faith,  which  also  comes  by 
preaching,  through  the  medium  of  one's  own  perception  and 
determination  of  will." 


THE  SACRAMENT  ESSENTIALLY  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

"  II.  Because  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  institutes  the 
Church,  and  then  introduces  into  the  Church,  for  '  Except  a 
man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  Kingdom  of  GOD — (John  iii.  5) — so  it  is  essentially 
(wesentlich)  Infant  Baptism." 

ADULTS  RECEIVE  IT  AS  INFANTS. 

"Again,  the  adult  candidate  for  Baptism  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  an  independent  personality,  with  reference  to  the 
Redemption  and  the  Kingdom  of  GOD.  All  his  independence 
is,  when  confronted  with  Baptism,  a  greatness  which  van- 
ishes away  He,  who  is  about  to  be  born  into  the  new 
world  of  Christianity,  descends  to  the  level  of  the  child  But 
in  consequence  of  this  very  fact,  that  the  Sacrament  of  Bap- 
tism lays  hold  of  man  before  ho  can  independently  lay  hold 
of  it,  it  proves  by  the  efficacy  of  preventing  Grace  its  sacra- 
mental nature." 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  175 


GROUND  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

"  By  virtue  of  that  need  of  Redemption  innate  in  the  child, 
it  longs,  indeed,  for  sacramental  union  with  God,  but  it  is 
conscious  of  no  impulse  of  the  will  directed  towards  that 
union,  still  less  does  it  exhibit  a  manifestation  of  the  will : 
therefore  Infant  Baptism  is  not  a  proceeding  conditional  on 
the  individual's  choice.  The  child  does  not  make  the  elec- 
tion at  his  own  direction,  but  is,  in  the  first  instance,  elected  : 
thus  the  Church  intervenes,  in  order  to  oppose  the  atomism 
(der  Atomistik)  of  sectarian  Baptism." 

SACRAMENTAL  PREDESTINATION. 

"  III.  By  this  denial  of  self-actuated  volition,  Baptism 
exhibits  itself  in  a  striking  manner,  as  the  Sacrament  of  Pre- 
destination. Sacramental  Predestination  consists  in  this,  that 
the  child  does-not  exhibit  itself  as  the  subject,  but  is  treated 
as  the  vessel  of  Grace — as  the  material  (als  die  creaturliche 
Stqffe  )  out  of  which  CHRIST  will  form  a  work.  In  Baptism 
it  is  CHRIST  who  assimilates  to  himself  the  natural  man,  in 
order,  at  a  later  period,  in  the  Holy  Communion,  to  cause 
Himself  to  be  assimilated  by  man,  through  the  means  of 
faithful  participation.  But  the  child  appears,  at  the  same 
time,  in  Baptism,  as  the  subject  in  which  the  beginning  is 
made.  Therefore,  this  effectual  OBJECTIVE  predestination  is 
not  complete,  for  from  the  election  of  grace  in  Baptism 
springs  the  call  of  grace  to  liberty.  Our  election  stands  fast 
through  Baptism :  the  development  of  the  fruit  of  Baptism, 
the  appointed  use  of  the  gift  of  grace  is,  however,  conditional 
on  watching  and  prayer,  on  the  living  in  communion,  and  on 
the  Holy  Supper.  Sacramental  Predestination  is  of  a  speci- 
fic and  more  intimate  nature,  in  opposition  to  that  universal 
predestination,  according  to  which  GOD  wills  that  assistance 
should  be  given  to  all  men.  Between  the  former  and  the 


176  PURITANISM: 

latter  there  exists  tho  same  relation  as  between  the  Word 
which  has  become  flesh,  and  the  same  Word  which  existed 
in  the  beginning.  But  what  sacramental  predestination  is  to 
the  succeeding  Christians,  such  was  the  original  authoritative 
faith  (Autoritatsglaube)  for  the  original  disciples,  which  es- 
sentially consists  in  this,  that  they  did  not  make  their  choice, 
but  were  chosen — that  they  were  embraced  before  they  could 
embrace  it.  In  our  time  it  is  particularly  important  to  draw 
attention  to  the  deep  import  of  authoritative  faith," 

HOW  DISTINGUISHED  FROM  CALVINISTIC  AND  ARMIMAN  PREDES- 
TINATION. 

"  Hence  this  sacramental  predestination  has  for  its  oppo- 
site extremes,  on  the  one  side  the  fatalist,  i.  c.  the  Calvinistic 
particular  election  ;  and  on  the  other,  the  Pelagian  predesti- 
nation, according  to  which  the  subject  predestinates  itself. 
The  Apocatastasis  also,  (i.  e.  the  restoration  of  all  moral 
beings  to  a  life  of  bliss  in  GOD,)  rests  on  the  very  same  point 
as  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination  which  is  opposed 
to  it — namely,  on  that  natural  necessity  to  which,  according 
to  both  doctrines,  moral  beings  are  subjected.  The  Apoca- 
tastasis has  only  this  advantage,  that  it  invests  with  the 
form  of  unity  the  Calvinistic  dualism — that  separation  be- 
tween the  happy  and  the  condemned  already  decreed 
from  the  beginning.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  sacramen- 
tal predestination,  however,  happiness  alone  has  been  be- 
stowed thetically — »'.  e.  by  virtue  of  original  determination, 
while  there  is  no  decree  of  condemnation  ;  which  latter  can, 
however,  follow  hypothetically,  or,  in  other  words,  possibly. 
Nay,  condemnation  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  hypoth- 
esis— in  other  words,  as  an  unavoidable  possibility — inasmuch 
as  baptismal  grace  contains  in  itself  no  final,  no  magical,  no 
doomed  predestination. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  177 

SACRAMENT  OF  REGENERATION. 

"  IV.  If  the  Sacrament  of  Infant  Baptism  contain,  in  the 
full  meaning  of  the  words,  not  alone  the  call,  but  also  the 
election — without  any  prejudice,  be  it  observed,  to  the  free- 
dom of  the  subject — it  is  also,  at  the  same  time,  the  Laver 
of  Regeneration,  in  which  the  baptized  '  put  on  CHRIST.' 
Thus  we  read  in  the  holy  Scripture ;  thus  too  Reason 
confesses  when  enlightened  by  Faith.  Baptism  is  the 
Act,  whereby  CHRIST  imparts  to  the  child  (undoubtedly  in  a 
sacramental  manner)  his  will,  which  confers  justification  on 
man.  Through  Baptism  the  child  is  really  a  participator  in 
the  righteousness  of  CHRIST,  as  the  substantial,  fruitful  prin- 
ciple of  a  new  life  in  the  general  community."  .  ,  . 

JUSTIFICATION  COMMUNICATED  IN  BAPTISM,  RECEIVED  BY  FAITH. 

"  It  is  to  be  carefully  remarked,  that  the  gracious  will  of 
GOD  in  CHRIST  is  the  principle  of  all  justification,  the  com- 
munication of  which  takes  place  through  Baptism,  the  recep- 
tion of  which  takes  place  through  Faith.  Thus  it  remains 
an  unalterable  fact,  that  it  is  Faith  alone  which  justifies  the 
sinner,  and  attains  to  regeneration ;  but  it  is  precisely  in  Bap. 
tism  that  this  Faith,  on,  and  through,  and  in  CHRIST,  is  sac- 
ramentally  received,  according  to  its  essence  and  according 
to  its  substance.  Therefore,  even  Luther,  the  preacher  of 
justification  through  Faith  only,  says  in  his  larger  Catechism, 
'  Undoubtedly  Faith  alone  makes  happy :  but  the  blind  will 
not  see  this,  that  Faith  must  have  something  which  it  can 
believe,  which  actually  exists,  and  on  which  it  may  fasten 
and  take  its  stand.  Now  Faith  depends  on  the  water,  and 
believes  that  Baptism  is  that  in  which  there  is  nought  but 
bliss  and  life  ;  not,  indeed,  by  virtue  of  the  water  itself,  but 
through  this,  that  it  is  incorporated  with  GOD'S  word  and 
ordinance,  and  that  His  name  cleaves  thereto.  If  I  now 
9 


178  PURITANISM 

believe  this  fact,  on  what  else  do  I  believe  than  on  GOD,  as 
on  Him  who  has  herein  given  and  planted  His  word,  and 
proffers  to  us  this  outward  thing,  whereby  we  can  lay  hold  of 
such  a  treasure?  But  now  men  are  FO  beside  themselves 
that  they  separate  from  each  other  the  Faith,  and  the  thing 
on  which  Faith  fastens  itself,  and  to  which  it  is  bound,  albeit 
that  thing  is  external.' 

NECESSITY  OF  BAPTISM. 

"  By  these  principles  we  at  onco  answer  the  question,  '  It 
Baptism  necessary  for  salvation  ? '  Here  is  the  reply :  Bap- 
tism, as  the  Sacrament  by  which  CHRIST  is  made  (angee:g- 
nef)  the  Christian's  own,  is  Christianity  itself;  but,  otherwise 
than  through  CHRIST,  none  can  come  to  GOD.  It  is  also 
the  appointed  rule,  that  this  Sacrament  should  be  adminis- 
tered through  water  and  the  Word.  Even  Paul  caused 
himself  to  be  baptized,  (Acts  ix.  19,)  and  his  sins  to  be  washed 
away  (Acts  xxii.  16.)  And  the  Apostles,  who  had  'seen, 
heard,  looked  on,  handled '  JESUS  in  the  form  of  a  servant, 
were  in  the  strictest  sense  baptized,  ordained,  predestinated, 
purified,  through  the  means  of  water,  by  the  Word  of  Life, 
by  the  personal  Sacrament,  by  the  Word  in  the  Flesh  (John 
xiii.  10  ;)  they  were  elected  by  the  Word,  (John  xv.  3,)  with- 
out having  made  their  own  election,  (John  xv.  1C,)  and  at 
last  were  filled  with  the  Spirit  (Acts  ii.  4.)  Since  that  pe- 
riod Baptism  in  water  and  the  Word  is  sacramental  initiation, 
(AcUii.410" 


"  The  rule,  however,  does  not  exclude  the  exceptions.  He 
who  comes  to  the  Faith,  has  either  been  already  baptized,  or 
will  still  receive,  or,  at  any  rate,  desire  Baptism,  in  order  to 
be  engrafted  into  the  body  of  the  Lord,  for  Christianity  is  no 
private  matter.  But  he  who  does  not  believe — that  is,  who 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  179 

does  not  accept  the  grace  actually  offered  to  him — that  man, 
be  he  baptized  or  not,  is  condemned  By  these  principles, 
likewise,  the  Baptism  of  necesaity*  is  justified,  and  every 
neglect  of  it  is  a  transgression  of  t.lie  ordinance  of  the  Church. 
It  is  the  ordinance  and  rule,  that  they  to  whom  the  command 
has  been  given  should  not  depend  on  exceptions  which  con- 
cern not  them,  but  the  Lord  alone.  The  notion  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  infinitely  numerous  and  different  means  of  grace 
can  possess  only  a  dialectical  validity  within  the  reality  of 
the  ordained  economy  of  Revelation,  and  on  the  presupposi- 
tion of  the  necessity  of  its  means  of  grace.  Thus  the  truth 
of  the  Baptism  of  necessity  (Nothtaufe)  lies  midway  between 
the  extremes  of  an  unconditional  necessity  of  the  sensuous 
act,  and  the  freedom  of  that  spiritual  Baptism  maintained  by 
the  Baptists.  So  it  is  also,  to  regard  the  matter  through  the 
bare  medium  of  sense,  (ist  es  auch  eine  baare  Sinnlichkeit,) 
when  the  super-sensuous  Idealists  do  not  acknowledge  in 
the  sensuous  act  of  the  Sacrament  GOD'S  invisible  Being : 
but  it  is  also  a  using  of  the  bare  medium  of  sense,  when  the 
Realists  regard  God's  invisible  Being  as  materially  united  to 
it.  CHRIST  obliges  MS  to  it — this  is  the  reply  to  the  super- 
sensuous  Idealists :  but  not  Himself — this  is  the  reply  to  the 
material  Realists." 

OBJECTIVE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH  IN  BAPTISM. 

"  V.  For  this  reason  Faith  belongs  to  the  child  in  the  con- 
gregation, through  Baptism.  For  this  reason  the  Apostolic 
Confession  of  Faith  is  proposed  to  the  Sponsors  as  the  Faith 
of  the  child,  in  order  to  their  professing  it  on  its  behalf.  For 
this  very  reason  the  mystical  union  of  the  community  exhi- 


*  Baptism  of  necessity  is  given  as  the  translation  of  the  technical 
phrase  die  Nothtaufe,  i.  e.  Baptism  performed,  in  cases  of  urgency,  by 
females  or  laymen,  a  practice  allowed  by  the  Lulheraui. 


180  PURITANISM 

bits  itself  in  Baptism,  in  the  child  who  is  incorporated  in  the 
community;  and  this  organic  uniting  of  all  the  members  into 
one  body,  is  also  in  Baptism  the  blessing  of  communion, 
in  coniraposition  to  which  all  separation  appears  atomistic. 
But  for  this  reason,  also,  Baptism,  as  a  Sacrament,  is  com- 
pleted objectively  by  means  of  the  administration,  and  re- 
quires, as  the  Act  of  CHRIST,  no  further  completion,  but, 
merely  that  it  be  developed  in  the  subject  on  whom  it  has 
been  bestowed.  Therefore,  Confirmation  is  neither  a  comple- 
tion, nor  even  a  ratification  of  Baptism,  but  merely  a  rati- 
fication of  its  subjective  development  in  the  child." 

SUBJECTIVE   IN  CONFIRMATION. 

"  Hence,  therefore,  Confirmation  is  for  the  subject  of  no 
less  importance.  It  certainly  possesses,  at  different  periods  of 
tfae  Church,  different  degrees  of  importance  ;  while  Baptism, 
regarded  in  its  sacramental  character,  remains  always  iden- 
tical with  itself:  but  although  Confirmation  does  uot  move 
precisely  parallel  with  the  Sacrament,  it  is,  nevertheless, 
when  regarded  as  an  acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  the 
subject  of  the  Baptism  administered  to  him,  and  as  an  ac- 
count which  the  subject  gives  of  it  in  the  presence  of  the 
congregation,  at  all  times  of  great  (in  times  like  ours  of  the 
very  greatest)  importance,  l-'or  at  present  there  has  arisen 
among  very  many  members  of  the  Christian  Church  a  wide 
opposition,  a  mighty  separation,  between  Baptism  and  the 
subjective  Confession.  And  yet  even  they  have  been  bap- 
tized who  have  fallen  from  their  baptismal  .vow." 

CATECHUMENS. 

In  the  case  of  such  persons,  Baptism  is  not  wanting,  but 
Confirmation  is.  The  Church,  therefore,  may  not  give  up 
her  baptized,  but  she  must  regard  them  as  catechumen* — 
as  such  persons  who,  cither  through  the  fault  of  the  Church 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM  181 

herself  have  not  preserved  their  Christian  illumination,  or 
who  have  made  themselves  under  age  (unmundig)  in  an 
ecclesiastical  sense.  Such  persons  are  to  be  regarded  as 
baptized,  but  in  an  unconfirmed  point  of  view.  They  are 
baptized  catechumens — baptized,  because  they  have  been 
baptized  once  for  all  by  Water  and  the  Word — unconfirmed, 
(however  solemnly  they  may  have  been  confirmed  a  long 
or  a  short  time  ago,)  because  they  do  not  profess  their  Bap- 
tism, and  consequently  are  to  be  regarded  as  catechumens 
afterwards,  as  well  as  before,  who  require  the  particular  care 
of  the  Church  ;  and  to  this  care  belongs  especially  catecheti- 
cal and  apologetical  instruction." 
-  jj*.  (  •  ^ 

DR.  HENGSTENBERG'S  COMMENT. 

"  The  Sacrament  of  holy  Baptism  reminds  us  once  more 
of  the  mystery  of  the  organism  in  which  the  Church  subsists. 
This  organism  of  the  Church,  and  the  Sacrament  of  Bap- 
tism, stand  in  such  a  mutual  relationship,  that  the  one  can- 
not exist  without  the  other.  From  the  organism  of  the 
general  congregation  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  proceeds  : 
the  Sacrament  in  its  turn,  it  is,  which  founds  the  organism 
in  every  new  member,  while  it  incorporates  the  latter  in  the 
former:  in  the  next  place,  the  Church  itself;  and  this,  we 
repeat,  is  the  organic  body  whose  head  is  CHRIST  as  the  GOD- 
MAN  :  but  the  head  is  not  merely  the  object,  it  is  also  the 
organic  head  of  the  body.  Therefore,  the  more  unadorned 
faith  on  the  Goo-MAN — that  only  treasure — shall  come  to 
life  and  to  consciousness  among  our  contemporaries,  with 
so  much  the  more  vitality  shall  the  mystery  of  the  organism 
of  CHRIST  again  wake  up — that  mystery  now  almost  effaced 
from  the  consciousness  of  the  community,  and  which  has 
become  a  stranger  not  to  the  infidel  alone,  but  even  to  the 
private  Christian.  By  means  of  such  a  revival  of  the  Church, 
considered  as  the  Body,  both  the  individual  who  administers 


182  PURITANISM 

the  Sacrament  M  the  organ,  and  aa  the  ordained  servant  of 
the  Church,  as  well  aa  the  sponsors  as  members  of  the  col- 
lective body,  would  arrive  at  their  true  position,  as  well  with 
reference  to  the  mystery  of  that  organism,  as  also,  in  an 
especial  degree,  to  the  Sacrament  ittelf:  for  out  of  that 
organism  alone  does  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  in  its  full 
and  real  importance,  disclose  and  expand  itself  as  '  the  en- 
trance into  all  divine  blessings,  and  into  the  Communion  of 
Saints.'" 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  183 


NOTE    D.       , 

THE  following  correspondence,  relating  to  a  period  upon 
which  Mr.  Hall  has  dwelt  at  much  length,  will  be  read 
wifh  interest  by  all.  It  is  the  state  of  things  as  viewed  by 
the  parties  themselves.  We  thought  it  better  to  permit  the 
men  of  that  age  to  tell  their  own  story  for  themselves,  than 
to  make  a  formal  answer  to  such  a  tissue  of  absurdities  as 
Mr.  Hall  has  penned  concerning  the  men  of  those  times. 

In  1646,  Charles  I.  fled  from  Oxford,  and  took  refuge 
with  the  Scottish  army,  then  at  Newark,  and  afterwards 
was  conducted  by  them  to  Newcastle.  Clarendon,  in  his 
History,  &c.,  vol.  III.  p.  31,  gives  the  following  account  of 
the  circumstances  connected  with  these  papers : 

"  Then  they  employed  their  Alexander  Henderson,  and 
their  other  clergy,  to  persuade  the  King  to  consent  to 
the  extirpation  of  Episcopacy  in  England,  as  he  had  in 
Scotland;  and  it  was,  and  is  still  believed,  that  if  hia 
Majesty  could  have  been  induced  to  have  satisfied  them 
in  that  particular,  they  would  either  have  had  a  party  in 
the  Parliament  at  Westminster  to  have  been  satisfied  there- 
with, or  that  they  would  thereupon  have  declared  for  the 
King,  and  have  presently  joined  with  the  loyal  party  in  all 
places  for  his  Majesty's  defence. 

"  But  the  King  was  too  conscientious  to  buy  his  peace  at 
BO  prophane  and  sacrilegious  a  price  as  was  demanded,  and 
he  was  so  much  too  hard  for  Mr.  Henderson  in  the  argu- 
mentation, (which  appears  by  the  papers  that  passed  between 
them,  which  were  shortly  after  communicated  to  the  world,) 
that  the  old  man  himself  was  so  far  convinced,  and  con- 
verted, that  he  had  a  very  deep  sense  of  the  mischief  he 
had  himself  been  the  author  of,  or  too  much  contributed  too, 
and  lamented  it  to  his  nearest  friends,  and  confidents,  and 


184  PUKITAXISM 

died  of  grief,  and  heart-broken,  within  a  very  short  time 
after  he  departed  from  his  Majesty." 

PAPERS   WHICH   PASSED    BETWEEN  ins  MAJESTY  CHARLES   i. 

AND  MR.  ALEXANDER.  HENDERSON,  CONCERNING  THE  CHANGE 
OF  CHURCH  GOV1RNMENT. 

At  Newtastle,  1646. 

I.  His  MAJESTY'S  First  Paper  for  Ma.  ALEXANDER 
HENDERSON. 

MR.  HENDERSON, — I  know  very  well  what  a  great  dis- 
advantage it  is  for  me,  to  maintain  an  argument  of  divinity 
with  so  able  and  learned  a  man  as  yourself,  it  being  your, 
not  my  profession  ;  which  really  was  the  cause  that  made 
me  desire  to  hear  some-  learned  man  argue  my  opinion  with 
you,  of  whose  abilities  I  might  be  confident  that  I  should 
not  be  led  into  an  error,  for  want  of  having  all  which  could 
be  said  laid  open  unto  me.  For,  indeed,  my  humour  is 
such,  that  I  am  still  partial  for  that  side  which  I  imagine 
suffers  for  the  weakness  of  those  that  maintain  it,  always 
thinking  that  equal  champions  would  cast  the  balance  on 
the  other  part.  Yet,  since  that  you  (thinking  that  it  will 
save  time)  desire  to  go  another  way,  I  shall  not  contest 
with  you  in  it,  but  treating  you  as  my  physician,  give  you 
leave  to  take  your  own  way  of  cure  ;  only  I  thought  fit  to 
warn  you,  lest  if  you  (not  I)  should  be  mistaken  in  this,  you 
would  be  fain  (in  a  manner)  to  begin  anew. 

Then  know  that  from  my  infancy  I  was  blest  with  the 
king  my  father's  love,  which,  I  thank  God,  was  an  invalu- 
able happiness  to  me,  all  his  days  ;  and  among  all  his  cares 
for  my  education,  his  chief  was,  to  settle  me  right  in  reli- 
gion ;  in  the  true  knowledge  of  which  he  made  himself  so 
eminent  to  all  the  world,  that  I  am  sure  none  can  call  in 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  185 

question  the  brightness  of  his  fame  in  that  particular,  with- 
out showing  their  own  ignorant  base  malice.  He  it  was 
who  laid  in  me  the  grounds  of  Christianity,  which  to  this 
day  I  have  been  constant  in.  So  that  whether  the  worthi- 
ness of  my  instructor  be  considered,  or  the  not  few  years 
that  I  have  been  settled  in  my  principles,  it  ought  to  be  no 
strange  thing,  if  it  be  found  no  easy  work  to  alter  them ; 
and  the  rather,  that  hitherto  I  have  (according  to  St.  Paul's 
rule,  Rom.  xiv.  22.)  been  happy  in  not  condemning  myself 
in  that  thing  which  I  allow.  Thus  having  shewed  you 
how,  it  remains  to  tell  you  what  I  believe,  in  relation  to 
these  present  miserable  distractions. 

No  one  thing  made  me  more'  reverence  the  reformation 
of  my  mother,  the  Church  of  England,  than  that  it  was 
done  (according  to  the  apostle's  defence,  Acts,  xxiv.  18,) 
"  neither  with  multitude  nor  with  tumult,"  but  legally  and 
orderly,  and  by  those  whom  I  conceive  to  have  the  reform- 
ing power  ;  which,  with  many  other  inducements,  made  me 
always  confident  that  the  work  was  very  perfect  as  to  essen- 
tials ;  of  which  number  church  government  being  undoubt- 
edly one,  I  put  no  question  but  that  would  have  been  like- 
wise altered  if  there  had  been  cause.  Which  opinion  of 
mine  was  soon  turned  into  more  than  a  confidence,  when  I 
perceived  that  in  this  particular  (as  I  must  say  of  all  the 
rest)  we  retained  nothing,  but  according  as  it  was  deduced 
from  the  apostles  to  be  the  constant  universal  custom  of  the 
primitive  church  ;  and  that  it  was  of  sueh  consequence,  as 
by  the  alteration  of  it  we  should  deprive  ourselves  of  a  law- 
ful priesthood  ;  and  then,  how  the  sacraments  can  be  duly 
administered  is  easy  to  judge.  These  are  the  principal  rea- 
sons which  make  me  believe  that  bishops  are  necessary  for  a 
church,  and,  I  think,  sufficiejit  for  mo  (if  I  had  no  more) 
not  to  give  my  consent  for  their  expulsion  out  of  England. 
But  I  have  another  obligation,  that  to  my  particular  is  a  no 
9* 


186  ftRlTAMSM 

leas  tie  of  conscience,  which  is,  my  coronation  oath.  Now 
if  (aa  St.  Paul  saith,  Rom.  xiv.  23,)  '•  He  that  doubteth  is 
damned,  if  he  eat,"  what  can  I  expect,  if  I  should  not  only 
give  way  knowingly  to  my  people's  sinning,  but  likewise  be 
perjured  myself? 

Now  consider,  ought  I  not  to  keep  myself  from  presump' 
tuous  sins?  and  you  know  who  says,  "  What  doth  it  profit  a 
man,  though  he  should  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  hia 
own  soul  ?"  Wherefore  my  constant  maintenance  of  Epis- 
pacy  in  England,  (where  there  was  never  any  other  govern- 
ment since  Christianity  was  in  this  kingdom,)  methinks, 
should  be  rather  commended  than  wondered  at,  my  con- 
science directing  me  to  maintain  the  laws  of  the  land ; 
which  being  only  my  endeavours  at  this  time,  I  desire  to 
know  of  you,  what  warrant  there  is  in  the  word  of  God  for 
subjects  to  endeavour  to  force  their  king's  conscience,  or  to 
make  him  alter  laws  against  his  will.  If  this  be  not  my 
present  case,  I  shall  be  glad  to  be  mistaken  ;  or  if  my  judg- 
ment in  religion  hath  been  misled  all  this  time,  I  shall  be 
willing  to  be  better  directed  ;  till  when,  you  must  excuse  me 
to  be  constant  to  the  grounds  which  the  king  my  father 
taught  me.  C.  R. 

Newcastle,  May  29,  1646. 

II.  MR.  ALEXANDER  HENDERSON'S  First  Paper  for  His 
MAJESTY. 

SIR, — It  is  your  majesty's  royal  goodness,  and  not  my 
merit,  that  hath  made  your  majesty  to  conceive  any  opinion 
of  my  abilities,  which  (were  they  worthy  of  the  smallest 
testimony  from  your  majesty)  ought  in  all  duty  to  be  im- 
proved for  your  majesty's  satisfaction.  And  this  I  intended 
in  my  coming  here  at  this  time,  by  a  free,  yet  modest, 
expression  of  the  true  motives  and  inducements  which  drew 
my  mind  to  the  dislike  of  Episcopal  government,  wherein  I 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  187 

was  bred  in  my  younger  years  in  the  university.  Likeas,  I 
did  apprehend,  that  it  was  not  your  majesty's  purpose  to 
have  the  question  disputed  by  divines  on  both  sides,  which  I' 
would  never  (to  the  wronging  of  the  cause)  have  undertaken 
alone,  and  which  seldom  or  never  hath  proved  an  effectual 
way  for  finding  of  truth,  or  moving  the  minds  of  men  to 
relinquish  their  former  tenets,  Dum  res  transit  « judicio  in 
effectum ;  witness  the  polemicks  between  the  Papists  and  us, 
and  among  ourselves  about  the  matter  now  in  hand,  these 
many  years  past. 

1.  Sir,  when  I  consider  your  majesty's  education  under 
the  hand  of  such  a  father,  the  length  of  time  wherein  your 
majesty  hath  been  settled  in  your  principles  of  church  gov- 
ernment, the  arguments  which  have  continually,  in  private 
and  public,  especially  of  late  at  Oxford,  filled  your  majesty's 
ears  for  the  divine  right  thereof,  your  coronation  oath,  and 
divers  state  reasons  which  your  majesty  doth  not  mention, 
I  do  not  wonder,  nor  think  it  any  strange  thing,  that  your 
majesty  hath  not  at  first  given  place  to  a  contrary  impres- 
sion.    I  remember  that  the  famous  Joannes  Picus  Mirandula 
proveth,  by  irrefragable  reasons  (which  no  rational  man  will 
contradict)   "  That  no  man  hath  so  much  power  over  his 
own  understanding,  as  to  make  himself  believe  that  he  will, 
or  to  think  that  to  be  true  which  his  reason  telleth  him  is 
false  ;  much  less  is  it  possible  for  any  man  to  have  his  rea- 
son commanded  by  the  will  or  at  tbe  pleasure  of  another." 

2.  It  is  a  true  saying  of  the  schoolmen,  Voluntas  imperat 
intellectui  quoad  exercitium,  non  quoad  specificationem ; 
mine  own  will,  or  the  will  of  another,  may  command  me  to 
think  upon  a  matter,  but  no  will  or  command  can  constrain 
rne  to  determine  otherwise  than  my  reason  teacheth  me. 
Yet,  Sir,  I  hope  your  majesty  will  acknowledge  (for  your 
paper  professeth  no  less)  that,  according  to  the  saying  of 
Ambrose,  Non  est  pudor  ad  meliora  transire,  it  is  neither 


188  PURITANISM 

sin  nor  shame  to  change  to  the  better.  Symmachus,  in  one 
of  his  epistles,  (I  think  to  the  emperors  Thcodosius  and 
Valentinian,)  allegeth  all  those  motives  from  education,  from 
prescription  of  time,  from  worldly  prosperity,  and  the  flour- 
ishing condition  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  from  the  laws  of 
the  land,  to  persuade  them  to  constancy  in  the  ancient 
Pagan  profession  of  the  Romans,  against  the  embracing  of 
the  Christian  fuith.  The  like  reasons  were  used  by  the 
Jews  for  Moses  against  Christ,  and  may  be  used  both  for 
Pepery  and  for  the  Papacy  itself  against  the  reformation  of 
religion  and  church  government,  and  therefore  can  have  no 
more  strength  against  the  change  now  than  they  had  in  for- 
mer times. 

3.  But  your  majesty  may  perhaps  say,  that  this  ta  petitio 
principii,  and  nothing  else  but  the  begging  of  the  question  ; 
and  I  confess  it  were  no,  if  there  can  be  no  reasons  brought 
for  a  reformation  or  cliange.  Your  majesty  reverences  the 
reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  being  done  legally 
and  orderly,  and  by  those  who  had  the  reforming  power  ; 
and  I  do  not  deny  but  it  were  to  be  wished  that  religion, 
where  there  is  need,  were  always  reformed  in  that  manner, 
and  by  such  power,  and  that  it  were  not  committed  to  the 
prelates,  who  have  greatest  need  to  be  reformed  themselves, 
nor  left  to  the  multitude,  whom  God  etirreth  up  when  princes 
arc  negligent.  Thus  did  Jacob  reform  his  own  family, 
Moses  destroy  the  golden  calf,  the  good  kings  of  Judah 
reform  the  church  in  their  time;  but  that  such  reformation 
hath  been  perfect  I  cannot  admit.  Asa  took  away  idolatry, 
but  liis  reformation  was  not  perfect ;  for  Jehosaphat  removed 
the  high  places,  yet  was  not  his  reformation  perfect ;  for  it 
was  Hezekiah  that  brake  the  brazen  serpent,  and  Josiah  de- 
stroyed the  idol  temples,  who  therefore  bearcth  thin  eulogy, 
that  like  unto  him  there  was  no  king  before  him.  It  is  too 
well  known  that  the  reformation  of  King  Henry  VIII.  wan 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  189 

most  imperfect  in  the  essentials  of  doctrine,  worship,  and 
government;  and  although  it  proceeded  by  some  degrees 
afterwards,  yet  the  government  was  never  reformed ;  the 
head  was  changed,  dominus  non  dominium,  and  the  whole 
limbs  of  the  antichristian  hierarchy  retained,  upon  what 
snares  and  temptations  of  avarice  and  ambition,  the  great 
enchanters  of  the  clergy,  I  need  not  express.  It  was  a 
hard  saying  of  Romanorum  Malleus,  Grosthed  of  Lincoln, 
that  reformation  was  not  to  be  expected,  nisi  in  ore  gladii 
cruentandi.  Yet  this  I  may  say,  that  the  Laodicean  luke- 
warmness  of  reformation  here  hath  been  matter  of  continued 
complaints  to  many  of  the  godly  in  this  kingdom  ;  occasion 
of  more  schism  and  separation  than  ever  was  heard  of  in 
any  other  church,  and  of  unspeakable  grief  and  sorrow  to 
other  churches,  which  God  did  bless  with  greater  purity  of 
reformation.  The  glory  of  this  great  work  we  hope  is  re- 
served for  your  majesty,  that  to  your  comfort  and  everlast- 
ing fame  the  praise  of  godly  Josiah  may  be  made  yours  ; 
which  yet  will  be  no  dispraise  to  your  royal  father,  or  Ed- 
ward the  VI.  or  any  other  religious  princes  before  you  ;  none 
of  them  having  so  fair  an  opportunity  as  is  now,  by  the 
supreme  Providence,  put  into  your  royal  hands.  My  soul 
trembleth  to  think  and  to  foresee  what  may  be  the  event,  if 
this  opportunity  be  neglected.  I  will  neither  use  the 
words  of  Mordecai,  (Esth.  iv.  14,)  nor  what  Savonarola  told 
another  Charles,  because  I  hope  better  things  from  your 
majesty. 

4.  To  the  argument  brought  by  your  majesty,  (which  I 
believe  none  of  your  doctors,  had  they  been  all  about  you, 
could  more  briefly,  and  yet  so  fully  and  strongly,  have  ex- 
pressed,) "  That  nothing  was  retained  in  this  church  but 
according  as  it  was  deduced  from  the  apostles  to  be  the  con- 
stant universal  practice  of  the  primitive  church  ;  and  that  it 
was  of  such  consequence,  as  by  the  alteration  of  it  we 


190  MJRlTAWstt. 

should  deprive  ourselves  of  the  lawfulness  of  priesthood,  (I 
think  your  majesty  means  a  lawful  ministry  ;)  and  then  how 
the  sacraments  can  be  administered  is  easy  to  judge."  1 
humbly  offer  these  considerations  : — First,  What  was  not  in 
the  times  of  the  apostles,  cannot  be  deduced  from  them. 
We  say  in  Scotland,  "  It  cannot  be  brought  but,  that  is  not 
the  ben :"  but  (not  to  insist  now  on  a  liturgy,  and  things  of 
that  kind,)  there  was  no  such  hierarchy,  no  such  difference 
betwixt  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  in  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  therefore  it  cannot  hence  be  deduced :  for  I  con- 
ceive it  to  be  as  clear  as  if  it  were  written  with  a  sunbeam, 
that  presbyter  and  bishop  are  to  the  apostles  one  and  the 
same  thing ;  no  majority,  no  inequality  or  difference  of  office, 
power,  or  degree,  betwixt  the  one  and  the  other,  but  a  mere 
identity  in  all.  Second,  That  the  apostles  intending  to  set 
down  the  offices  and  officers  of  the  church,  and  speaking  so 
often  of  them,  and  of  their  gifts  and  duties,  and  that  not 
upon  occasion,  but  of  set  purpose,  do  neither  express  nor 
imply  any  such  pastor  or  bishop  as  hath  power  over  other 
pastors  ;  although  it  be  true,  that  they  have  distinctly  and 
particularly  expressed  the  office,  gifts,  and  duties  of  the 
meanest  officers,  such  as  deacons.  Third,  That  in  the  min- 
istry of  the  New  Testament,  there  is  a  comely,  beautiful, 
and  divine  order  and  subordination  ;  one  kiud  of  ministers, 
both  ordinary  and  extraordinary,  being  placed  in  degree  and 
dignity  before  another,  as  the  apostles  first,  the  evangelists, 
pastors,  doctors,  &c.,  in  their  own  ranks ;  but  we  cannot 
find,  in  offices  of  the  same  kind,  that  one  had  majority  of 
power,  or  priority  of  degree,  before  another;  no  apostle 
above  other  apostles,  (unless  in  moral  respects,)  no  evange- 
list above  other  evangelists,  or  deacon  above  other  deacons : 
why  then  a  pastor  above  other  pastors  ?  In  all  other  sort* 
of  ministers,  ordinary  and  extraordinary,  a  parity  in  their 
own  kind,  only  in  the  office  of  pastor  an  inequality.  Fourth, 


GfiNtflNK  PROTES* ANTISJf.  191 

That  the  whole  power;  and  all  the  parts  of  the  ministry, 
which  are  commonly  called  the  power  of  order  and  jurisdio-* 
tion,  are  by  the  apostles  declared  to  be  common  to  the 
presbyter  and  bishop ;  and  that  (Mat.  xviii.  15,  16,  17,) 
the  gradation  in  matter  of  discipline  or  church  censures, 
is  from  one  to  two  or  more  ;  and  "if  he  shall  neglect  them, 
tell  it  to  the  church :"  he  saith  not,  tell  it  to  the  bishop ; 
there  is  no  place  left  to  a  retrogradation  from  more  to  one, 
Were  he  never  so  eminent.  If  these  considerations  do  not 
satisfy,  your  majesty  may  have  more,  or  the  same  farther 
cleared. 

5.  Secondly,  I  do  humbly  desire  your  majesty  to  take 
notice  of  the  fallacy  of  that  argument,  from  the  practice  of 
the   primitive   church,  and  the   universal   consent   of    the 
fathers.     It  is  the  argument  of  the  Papists  for  such  tradi- 
tions as  no  orthodox  divine  will  admit.     The  law  and  testi- 
mony must  be  the  rule.     We  can  have  no  certain  knowledge 
of  the  practice  universal  of  the   church  for  many  years  : 
Eusebius,   the  prime    historian,    confesseth    so   much ;    the 
learned  Josephus  Scaliger  testifieth,  that  from  the  end  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  until  a  good  time  after,  no  certainty 
can  be  had  from  ecclesiastical  authors  about  church  matters. 
It  is  true,  Diotrephes  sought  the  preeminence  in  the  apostles' 
times,  and  the  mystery  of  iniquity  did  then  begin  to  work  ; 
and  no  doubt  in  after  times,  some  puffed  up  with  ambition, 
and  others  overtaken  with  weakness,  endeavoured  alteration 
of  church  government ;  but  that  all  the  learried  and  godly 
of  those  limes  consented  to  such  a  change  as  is  talked  of 
alerwards,  will  never  be  proved. 

6.  Th'rdly,  I  will  never  think  that  your  majesty  will  deny 
the  lawfulness  of  a  ministry,  and  the   due  administration  of 
the  sacraments  in  the  reformed  churches  wh  ich  have  no  dio- 
cesan bishops,  sith  it  is  not  only  manifest  by  Scripture,  but 
a  great  many  of  the  strongest  champions  for  Episcopacy 


192  PURITANISM 

do  confess,  that  presbyters  may  ordain  other  presbyters ; 
and  that  baptism  administered  by  a  private  person,  wanting 
a  public  calling,  or  by  a  midwife,  and  by  a  presbyter, 
although  not  ordained  by  a  bishop,  are  not  one  and  the  tame 
thing. 

7.  Concerning  the  other  argument  taken  from  your  ma- 
jesty's coronation  oath,  I  confess  that  both  in  the  taking  and 
keeping  of  an  oath  (so  sacred  a  thing  is  it,  and  so  high  a 
point  of  religion)  much  tenderness  is  required :  and  far  be  it 
from  us,  who  desire  to  observe  our  own  solemn  oath,  to  press 
your  majesty  with  the  violation  of  yours.  •  Yet,  Sir,  I  will 
crave  your  leave,  in  all  humbleness  and  sincerity,  to  lay  be- 
fore your  majesty's  eyes  this  one  thing,  (which,  perhaps, 
might  require  a  larger  discourse,)  that  although  no  human 
authority  can  dispense  with  an  oath,  </""'  religio  juramenti 
pertinet  ad  forum  divinum;  yet,  in  some  cases,  it  cannot 
be  denied  but  the  obligation  of  an  oath  ccaseth,  as  when  we 
swear  homage  and  obedience  to  our  lord  and  superior,  who 
afterwards  ceaseth  to  be  our  lord  and  superior  ;  for  then  the 
formal  cause  of  the  oath  is  taken  away,  and  therefore  the 
obligation,  sublatd.  causa  tollitur  effectus,  sublato  relate  tol- 
litur  correlation :  or  when  any  oath  hath  a  special  reference 
to  the  benefit  of  those  to  whom  I  muke  the  promise,  if  we 
have  their  desire  or  consent,  the  obligation  ceaseth  ;  because 
all  such  oaths,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  do  include  a 
condition.  When  the  Parliaments  of  both  kingdoms  have 
covenanted  f»r  the  abolishing  or  altering  of  a  law,  your  ma- 
jesty's oath  doth  not  bind  you  or  your  conscience  to  the 
observing  of  it ;  otherwise,  no  laws  could  be  altered  by  the 
legislative  powe-.  This  I  conceive  hath  been  the  ground  of 
removing  Episcopal  government  in  Scotland,  and  of  remov- 
ing the  bishops  out  of  the  Parliament  of  England.  And  I 
assure  myself  that  your  majesty  did  not  intend,  at  the  taking 
of  your  oath,  that  although  both  houses  of  Parliament  should 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  193 

find  an  alteration  necessary,  although  (which  God  Almighty 
avert !)  you  should  lose  yourself  and  your  posterity  and 
crown,  that  you  would  never  consent  to  the  abolishing  of 
such  a  law.  If  your  majesty  still  object,  "  that  the  matter 
of  the  oath  is  necessary  and  immutable  ;"  that  doth  not  be- 
long to  this,  but  to  the  former  argument. 

8.  I  have  but  one  word  more  concerning  your  piety  to 
your  royal  father  and  teacher,  of  happy  memory,  with 
which  your  majesty  does  conclude.  Your  majesty  knows 
that  King  James  never  admitted  Episcopacy  upon  divine 
right ;  that  his  majesty  did  swear  and  subscribe  to  the  doc- 
trine, worship,  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  ; 
that  in  the  preface  of  the  latter  edition  of  Basilicon  Doron, 
his  majesty  gives  an  honourable  testimony  of  those  that 
loved  better  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel  than  the  pomp  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  that  he  con- 
ceived the  prelates  to  favour  the  Popish  hierarchy ;  and  that 
(could  his  ghost  now  speak  to  your  majesty)  he  would  not 
advise  your  majesty  to  run  such  hazards  for  those  men  who 
will  choose  rather  to  pull  down  your  throne  with  their  own 
ruin,  than  that  they  perish  alone.  The  Lord  give  your  ma- 
jesty a  wise  and  discerning  spirit  to  choose  that  in  time 
which  is  right ! 

June  3,  1646. 

III.   His  MAJESTY'S   Second  Paper  for  MR.  ALEXANDER 
HENDERSON.     A  reply  to  his  Answer  to  my  first  Paper. 

June  6,  1646. 

MR.  HENDERSON, — If  it  had  been  the  honour  of  the  cause 
which  I  looked  after,  I  would  not  have  undertaken  to  put 
pen  to  paper,  or  singly  to  have  maintained  this  argument 
against  you,  whose  answer  to  my  former  paper  is  sufficient, 
without  farther  proofs,  to  justify  my  opinion  of  your  abilities  ; 
but  it  being  merely  (as  you  know)  for  my  particular  satisfac- 


194  PURITANISM 

tion,  I  assure  you  that  a  disputation  of  well  chosen  divines 
would  be  most  effectual ;  and,  I  believe,  you  cannot  but 
grant  that  I  must  best  know  how  myself  may  be  beat  satis- 
fied, for  certainly  my  taste  cannot  be  guided  by  another 
man's  palate  ;  and  indeed  I  will  say  that  when  it  comes  (as 
it  must)  to  probations,  I  must  have  either  persons  or  books  to 
clear  the  allegations,  or  it  will  be  impossible  to  give  me  satis- 
faction. The  foreseeing  of  which  made  me  at  first  (for  the 
saving  of  time)  desire  that  some  of  those  divines  which  I 
gave  you  in  a  list  might  be  sent  for. 

2.  Concerning  your  second  section,  I  were  much  to  blame 
if  I  should  not  submit  to  that  saying  of  St.  Ambrose  which 
you  mention,  for  I  would  be  unwilling  to  be  found  less  in- 
genuous than  you  shew  yourself  to  be  in  the  former  part  of 
it ;  wherefore  my  reply  is,  that  as  I  shall  not  be  ashamed  to 
change  for  the  better,  so  I  must  see  that  it  is  better  before  I 
change,  otherwise,  inconstancy  in  this  were  both  sin  and 
shame,  and  remember  (what  yourself    hath  learnedly  en- 
forced,) that  "  no  man's  reason  can  be  commanded  by  an- 
other man's  will." 

3.  Your  third  begins,  but  I  cannot  say  that  it  goes  on 
with  that  ingenuity  which  the  other  did ;  for  I  do  not  under- 
stand how  those  examples  cited  out  of  the  old  Testament, 
do  any  way   prove   that  the  way  of  reformation  which  I 
commend  hath  not  been  the  most  perfect,  or  that  any  other 
is  lawful,  those  having  been  all  by  the  regal  authority  ;  and 
because  Henry  VIII. 's  reformation  was  not  perfect,  will  it 
prove  that  of  King  Edward  and  Queen  Elizabeth  to  be  im- 
perfect?    I  believe  a  new  mood  and  figure  must  be  found 
out  to  form  a  syllogism  whereby  to  prove  that.     But,  how- 
ever, you  are  mistaken  ;  for  no  man  who  truly  understands 
the  English  reformation  will  derive  it  from  Henry  VIII.,  for 
he  only  gave  the  occasion ;  it  was  his  son  who  began,  and 
Queen  Elizabeth  that  perfected  it     Nor  did  I  ever  aver  that 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  195 

the  beginning  of  any  human  action  was  perfect,  no  more 
than  you  can  prove  "  that  God  hath  ever  given  approbation 
to  multitudes  to  reform  the  negligence  of  princes,"  for  you 
know  there  is  much  difference  between  permission  and  ap- 
probation. But  all  this  time  I  find  no  reasons  (according  to 
your  promise)  for  a  reformation  or  change,  (I  mean  since 
Queen  Elizabeth's  time.)  As  for  your  Romanorum  Malleus 
his  saying,  it  is  well  you  come  off  it  with,  "  yet  this  I  may 
say ;"  for  it  seems  to  imply,  as  if  you  neither  ought  nor 
would  justify  that  bloody  ungodly  saying  :  and  for  your 
comparing  our  reformation  here  to  the  Laodicean  lukewarm- 
ness,  proved  by  complaints,  grievings,  &c.,  all  that  doth  and 
but  unhandsomely  petere  principium ;  nor  can  generals 
satisfy  me;  for  you  must  first  prove  that  those  men  had 
reason  to  complain,  those  churches  to  be  grieved,  and 
how  we  were  truly  the  causes  of  this  schism  and  separation. 
As  for  those  words  which  you  will  not  use,  I  will  not  an- 
swer. 

4.  Here,  indeed,  you  truly  repeat  the  first  of  my  two 
main  arguments ;  but  by  your  favour,  you  take  (as  I  con- 
ceive) a  wrong  way  to  convince  me  :  It  is  I  must  make 
good  the  affirmative,  for  I  believe  a  negative  cannot  be 
proved.  Instead  of  which,  if  you  had  made  appear  the 
practice  of  the  Presbyterian  government  in  the  primitive 
times,  you  had  done  much  ;  for  I  do  aver  that  this  gov- 
ernment was  never  practised  before  Calvin's  time,  the 
affirmative  of  which  I  leave  you  to  prove,  my  task  being  to 
shew  the  lawfulness  and  succession  of  Episcopacy,  and,  as 
I  believe,  the  necessity  of  it.  For  doing  whereof  I  must 
have  such  books  as  I  shall  call  for,  which  possibly  upon 
perusal  may,  one  way  or  other,  give  me  satisfaction ;  but  I 
cannot  absolutely  promise  it  without  the  assistance  of  some 
learned  man,  whom  I  can  trust,  to  find  out  all  such  cita- 
tions as  I  have  use  of ;  wherefore  blame  me  not  if  time  be 
unnecessarily  lost. 


190  PURltAMSM 

5.  Now  for  the  fallaciousness  of  my  argument,  (to  my 
knowledge,)  it  was  never  my  practice,  nor  do  I  confess  to 
have    begun    now.     For  if   the    practice   of    the    primitive 
church,  and  the  universal  consent  of  the  fathers,  be  not  a 
convincing  argument,  when  the  interpretation  of  Scripture 
is  doubtful,  I  know  nothing ;  'or  if  this  be  not,  then  of  neces- 
sity the  interpretation  of  private  spirits  must  be  admitted  ; 
the  which  contradicts  St.  Peter,  (2  Pet.  i.  20.)  is  the  mother 
of  all  sects,  and  will  (if  not  prevented)  bring  these  kingdoms 
into  confusion.     And  to  say  that  an  argument  is  ill  because 
the  Papists  use  it,  or  th'at  such  a  thing  is  good  because  it  is 
the  custom  of  some  of  the  reformed  churches,  cannot  weigh 
with  me,  until  you  prove  these  to  be  infallible,  or  that  to 
maintain  no  truth.     And  how  Diotrephes'  ambition,   (who 
directly  opposed  the  apostle  St.  John)  can.  be  an  argument 
against  Episcopacy,  I  do  not  understand. 

6.  When  I  am  made  a  judge  over  the  reformed  churches, 
then,  and  not  before,  will  I  censure  their  actions ;  as  you 
must  prove  before  I  confess  it,  "  that  presbyters  without  a 
bishop  may  lawfully  ordain  other  presbyters."     And  as  for 
the  administration  of  baptism,  as  I  think  none  will  say  that 
a  woman  can  lawfully  or  duly  administer  it,  though  when 
done  it  be  valid  ;  so  none  ought  to  do  it  but  a  lawful  presby- 
ter, whom  you  cannot  deny  but  to  be  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  sacrament  of  the  eucharist. 

7.  You  make  a  learned  succinct  discourse  of  oaths  in  gen- 
eral, and  their  several  obligations,  to  which  I  fully  agree ; 
intending  in  the  particular  now  in  question,  to  be  guided  by 
your  own  rule,  which  is,  "  when  any  oath  hath  a  special 
reference  to  the  benefits  of  those  to  whom  I  make  the  prom- 
ise, if  we  have  their  desire  or  consent,  the  obligation  ceaseth." 
Now,  it  must  be  known  to  whom  this  oath  hath  reference,  and 
to  whose  benefit.     The  answer  is  clear,  only  to  the  Church 
of  England,  as  by  the  record  will  be  plainly  made  appear. 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  197 

And  you  much  mistake  in  alleging  that  the  two  houses  of 
Parliament,  especially  as  they  are  now  constituted,  can 
have  this  disobligatory  power ;  for  (besides  they  are  not  named 
in  it)  I  am  confident  to  make  it  clearly  appear  to  you,  that 
this  church  never  did  submit  nor  was  subordinate  to  them, 
and  that  it  was  only  the  king  and  clergy  who  made  the 
reformation,  the  Parliament  merely  serving  to  help  to  give 
the  civil  sanction.  AH  this  being  proved  (of  which  I 
make  no  question)  it  must  necessarily  follow,  that  it  is 
only  the  Church  of  England,  in  whose  favour  I  took  this 
oath,  that  can  release  me  from  it ;  wherefore,  when  the 
Ghurch  of  England,  being  lawfully  assembled,  shall  de- 
clare that  I  am  free,  then,  and  not  before,  shall  I  esteem 
myself  so. 

8.  To  your  last,  concerning  the  king  my  father,  of  happy 
and  famous  memory,  both  for  his  piety  and  learning,  I  must 
tell  you,  that  I  had  the  happiness  to  know  him  much  better 
than  you ;   wherefore  I  desire  you  not  to  be  too  confident 
in  the  knowledge  of  his  opinions ;   for  I  dare  say,  should 
his  ghost  now  speak,  he  would  tell  you,  "  That  a  bloody 
reformation  was  never  lawful,  as  not  warranted  by  God's 
word,"  and  that  preces  et  lachrymal,  sunt  arma  ecclesitz. 

9.  To  conclude,  having  replied  to  all  your  paper,  I  can- 
not but  observe  to  you,  that  you  have  given  me  no  answer 
to  my  last  query.     It  may  be  you  are  (as  Chaucer  says) 
like  the  people  of    England,    "  What    they  not  like,  they 
never  understand ;"  but  in  earnest,  that  question  is  so  per- 
tinent to  the  purpose  in  hand,  that  it  will  much  serve  for 
my  satisfaction,  and,  besides,    it  may   be   useful  for  other 
things.  C.  R. 

Newcastle,  June  6,  1646. 


198  PURITANISM 

IV.  MR.  ALEXANDER  HENDERSON'S  Secold  Paper  for  HIB 
MAJESTY. 

SIR, — Tho  smaller  the  encouragements  be  in  relation  to 
the  success,  (which  how  small  they  are  your  majesty  well 
knows,)  the  more  apparent,  and,  1  hope,  the  more  acceptable 
will  my  obedience  be,  in  that  which  in  all  humility  1  now  go 
about  at  your  majesty's  command  ;  yet  while  I  consider  that 
the  way  of  the  man  is  not  in  himself,  nor  is  in  man  that 
walketh  to  direct  his  own  steps,  and  when  I  remember  how 
many  supplications,  with  strong  crying  and  tears,  have  been 
openly  and  secretly  offered  up  in  your  majesty's  behalf 
unto  God  that  heareth  prayer,  I  have  no  reason  to  despair 
of  a  blessed  success. 

1.  I  have  been  averse   from  a  disputation  of   divines, — 
1st,    For  the  saving  of   time,  which  the  present  exigence 
and  extremity  of  affaire  make  more  than  ordinarily  precious. 
While  Archimedes  at  Syracuse  was  drawing  his  figures  and 
circlings  in  the  sand,  Marcellus  interrupted  his  demonstration. 
2d,    Because  the  common  result  of   disputes  of   this  kind, 
answerable  to  the  prejudicate  opinions  of  the  parties,  is  rather 
victory  than  verity  ;  while  tanquam  tentatiti  dialectici,  they 
study  more  to  overcome  their  adverse  party  than  to  be  over- 
come of  truth,  although  this  be  the  most  glorious  victory. 
3d,  When  I  was  commanded  to  come  hither,  no  such  thing 
was  proposed  to  me  nor  expected  by  me  ;  I  never  judged  BO 
meanly  of  the  cause,  nor  so  highly  of  myself,  as  to  venture 
it  upon  such  weakness.     Much  more  might  be  spoken  to 
this  purpose,  but  I  forbear. 

2.  I  will  not  farther  trouble  your  majesty  with  that  which 
is  contained  in  the  second  section,  hoping  that  your  majesty 
will  no  more  insist  upon  education,  prescription  of  time,  &c., 
which  are  sufficient  to  prevent  admiration,  but  (which  your 
majesty  acknowledges)  must  give  place  to  reason,  and  are 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  199 

no  sure  ground  of  resolution  of  our  faith  in  any  point  to  be 
believed ;  although  it  be  true,  that  the  most  part  of  men 
make  these  and  the  like  to  be  the  ground  and  rule  of  their 
faith;  an  evidence  that  their  faith  is  not  a  divine  faith,  but 
an  human  credulity. 

3.  Concerning  reformation  of  religion  in  the  third  section  ; 
I  had  need  have  a  preface  to  so  thorny  a  theme  as  your  ma- 
jesty hath  brought  me  upon.  1st,  For  the  reforming  power: 
it  is  conceived,  when  a  general  defection,  like  a  deluge,  hath 
covered  the  whole  face  of  the  church,  so  that  scarcely  the 
tops  of  the  mountains  do  appear,  a  general  council  is  neces- 
sary ;  but  because  that  can  hardly  be  obtained,  several  king- 
doms (which  we  see  was  done  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion) are  to  reform  themselves,  and  that  by  the  authority  of 
their  prince  and  magistrates.  If  the  prince  or  supreme 
magistrate  be  unwilling,  then  may  the  inferior  magistrate 
and  the  people,  being  more  rightly  informed  in  the  grounds 
of  religion,  lawfully  reform  within  their  own  sphere  ;  and  if 
the  light  shine  upon  all  or  the  major  part,  they  may,  after  all 
other  means  essayed,  make  a  public  reformation.  This  be- 
fore this  time  I  never  wrote  or  spoke  ;  yet  the  maintainers  of 
this  doctrine  conceive  that  they  are  able  to  make  it  good. 
But,  sir,  were  I  worthy  to  give  advice  to  your  majesty,  or  to 
the  kings  and  supreme  powers  on  earth,  my  humble  opinion 
would  be,  that  they  should  draw  the  minds,  tongues,  and  pens 
of  the  learned,  to  dispute  about  other  matter  than  the  power 
or  prerogative  of  kings  and  princes  ;  and  in  this  kind  your 
majesty  hath  suffered  and  lost  more  than  will  easily  be 
restored  to  yourself  or  to  your  posterity  for  a  long  time.  It 
is  not  denied  but  the  prime  reforming  power  is  in  the  kings 
and  princes ;  quibus  deficientibus,  it  comes  to  the  inferior 
magistrates;  quibus  deficientibus,  it  descendeth  to  the  body 
of  the  people ;  supposing  that  there  is  a  necessity  of  refor- 
mation, and  that  by  no  means  it  can  be  obtained  of  their 


200  PURITANISM 

superiors.  It  is  true  that  such  a  reformation  is  more  imper- 
fect in  respect  of  the  instruments  aud  manner  of  procedure  ; 
yet,  for  the  most  part,  more  pure  and  perfect  in  relation  to 
the  effect  and  product  And  for  this  end  did  I  cite  the 
examples  of  old,  of  reformation  by  regal  authority  ;  of  which 
none  was  perfect,  in  the  second  way  of  perfection,  except 
that  of  Josiah.  Concerning  the  saying  of  Grosthed,  whom 
the  cardinals  at  Rome  confessed  to  be  a  more  godly  man 
than  any  of  themselves,  it  was  his  complaint  and  prediction 
of  what  was  likely  to  ensue,  not  his  desire  or  election  if 
reformation  could  have  been  obtained  in  the  ordinary  way. 
I  might  bring  two  impartial  witnesses,  Juel  and  Bilson,  both 
famous  English  bishops,  to  prove  that  the  tumults  and  trou- 
bles raised  in  Scotland,  at  the  time  of  reformation,  were  to 
be  imputed  to  the  Papists  opposing  of  the  reformation  both 
of  doctrine  and  discipline,  as  an  heretical  innovation,  and  not 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  nobility  or  people,  who,  under  God,  were 
the  instruments  of  it,  intending  and  seeking  nothing,  but 
the  purging  out  of  error  and  settling  of  the  truth.  2d,  Con- 
cerning the  reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  I  con- 
ceive, whether  it  was  begun  or  not  in  King  Henry  VIII.'s 
time,  it  was  not  finished  by  Queen  Elizabeth :  the  father 
stirred  the  humours  of  the  diseased  church  ;  but  neither  the 
son  nor  the  daughter  (although  we  have  great  reason  to  bless 
God  for  both)  did  purge  them  out  perfectly  :  this  perfection  is 
yet  reserved  for  your  majesty.  Where  it  is  said,  "  that  all 
this  time  I  bring  no  reasons  for  a  further  change  ;"  the 
fourth  section  of  my  last  paper  hath  many  hints  of  reasons 
against  Episcopal  government,  with  an  offer  of  more,  or 
clearing  of  those  ;  which  your  majesty  hath  not  thought  fit 
to  take  notice  of.  And  learned  men  have  observed  many 
defects  in  that  reformation ;  as,  that  the  government  of  the 
Church  of  England  (for  about  this  is  the  question  now)  is 
not  builded  upon  the  foundation  of  Christ  and  the  apostles, 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  201 


which  they  at  least  cannot  deny,  who  profess  Church  govern- 
ment to  be  mutable  and  ambulatory,  and  such  were  the 
gteater  part  of  archbishops  and  bishops  in  England,  content- 
ing themselves  with  the  constitutions  of  the-  Church,  and 
the  authority  and  munificences  of  princes,  till  of  late  that 
some  few  have  pleaded  it  to  be  jure  divino :  that  the  Eng- 
lish reformation  hath  not  thoroughly  purged  out  the  Roman 
leaven  ;  which  is  one  of  the  reasons  that  hath  given  ground 
to  the  comparing  of  this  Church  to  the  Church  of  Laodicea, 
as  being  neither  hot  nor  cold,  neither  Popish  nor  reformed, 
but  of  a  lukewarm  temper  betwixt  the  two  ;  that  it  hath 
depraved  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  by  conforming  of  it 
to  the  civil  policy;  that  itjiath  added  many  Church  offices, 
higher  and  lower,  unto  those  instituted  by  the  Son  of  God, 
which  is  as  unlawful  as  to  take  away  offices  warranted  by 
the  divine  institution ;  and  other  the  like,  which  have 
moved  some  to  apply  this  saying  to  the  Church  of  England, 
Multi  ad  perfectionem  pervenirent,  nisi  jam  se  pervenisse 
crederent.  .  •  •  . 

4.  In  my  answer  to  the  first  of  your  majesty's  many  argu- 
ments, I  brought  a  breviate  of  some  reasons  to  prove  that 
"  a  bishop  and  presbyter  are  one  a.nd  the  same  in  Scripture  ;" 
from  which,  by  necessary  consequence,  I  did  infer  the  nega- 
tive, therefore  no  difference,  in  Scripture,  between  a  bishop 
and  a  presbyter  ;  the  one  name  signifying  industriam  curia 
pastoralis,  the  other,  sape?iti(B  maturitatem,  saith  Beda. 
And  whereas  your  majesty  avers,  "  that  Presbyterian  gov- 
ernment was  never  practised  before  Calvin's  time ;"  your 
majesty  knows  the  common  objection  of  the  Papists  against 
the  reformed  Churches,  Where  was  your  Church,  your  refor- 
mation, your  doctrine,  before  Luther's  time  ?  One  part  of 
the  common  answer  is,  "  That  it  was  from  the  beginning, 
and  is  to  be  found  in  Scripture."  The  same  I  affirm  of  Pres-. 
byterian  government.  And  for  the  proving  of  this,  the 
10  • 


202  PURITANISM 

Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster  have  made  manifest, 
•"  that  the  primitive  Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem  was 
governed  by  a  presbyter}':"  while  they  shew,  1st,  That  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  consisted  of  more  congregations  than 
one,  from  the  multitude  of  believers,  from  the  many  apostles 
and  other  preachers  in  that  church,  and  from  the  diversity 
of  languages  among  the  believers.  2.  That  all  these  con- , 
gregations  were  under  one  prcsbyterial  government,  because 
they  were  for  government  one  church,  (Acts,  xi.  22,  26,) 
and  because  that  church  was  governed  by  elden,  (Acts,  xi. 
30,)  which  were  elders  of  that  church,  and  did  meet  together 
for  acts  of  government ;  and  the  apostles  themselves,  in 
that  meeting,  (Acts,  xv.)  acted  not  as  apostles,  but  as  elden, 
stating  the  question,  debating  it  in  the  ordinary  way  of  dis- 
putation ;  and  having,  by  search  of  Scripture,  found  the 
will  of  God,  they  conclude,  "  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  us  ;"  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  learned,  may 
be  spoken  by  any  assembly  upon  like  evidence  of  Scripture. 
The  like  Presbyterian  government  had  place  in  the  churches 
of  Corinth,  Ephesus,  Thessalonica,  &c.,  in  the  times  of  the 
apostles ;  and  after  them,  for  many  years,  when  one  of  the 
presbytery  was  made  episcopus  prates,  even  then  Communi 
presbyterorum  consilio  ecdesicc  gubernabantur,  saith  Je- 
rome ;  and,  Epitcopus  magit  consuetudine  quam  ditposi- 
tionis  divintz  tcritate  presbyteris  esses  majores,  et  in  com- 
mune debere  eccletiam  regcre. 

5.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  think  such  a  thought,  as  that  yonr 
majerty  did  intend  any  fallacy  in  your  other  main  argument 
from  antiquity.  As  we  are  to  distinguish  between  intentio 
operantii  et  condilia  opcris,  so  may  we,  in  this  case,  con- 
sider the  difference  between  intentio  argitmentantis  et  eon- 
ditto  argumenti.  And  where  your  majesty  argues,  that,  if 
your  opinion  be  not  admitted,  we  will  be  forced  to  give  place 
1o  th*-  interpretation  nf  private  xpiritt.  which  is  contrary  to 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTIS3I.  203 

the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  will  prove  to  be  of 
dangerous  consequence ;  I  humbly  offer  to  be  considered  by 
your  majesty,  what  some  of  chief  note  among  the  Papists 
themselves  have  taught  us,  That  the  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  spirits  •  whence  they  proceed,  may  be  called 
private  in  a  threefold  sense — 1st,  Ratione  persona:,  if  the 
interpreter  be  of  a  private  condition;  2d,  Ratione  modi  et 
~medii,  when  persons,  although  not  private,  use  not  the  public 
m§ans  which  are  necessary  for  finding  out  the  truth,  but 
follow  their  own  fanqies ;  3d,  Ratione  finis,  when  the  inter- 
pretation is  not  proposed  as  authentjcal  to  bind  others,  but  is 
intended  for  our  own  private  satisfaction.  The  first  is  not 
to  be  despised ;  the  second  is  to  be  exploded,  and  is  con 
demned  by  the  Apostle  Peter ;  the  third  ought  not  to  be  cen- 
sured :  but  that  interpretation  which  is  auth'entical,  and  of 
supreme  authority,  which  every  man's  conscience  is'  bound 
to  yield  unto,  is  of  an  higher  nature.  And  although  the 
general  council  should  resolve  it,  and  the  consent  of  the 
fathers  should  be  had  tmto  it,  yet  there  must  always  be  place 
left  to  the  judgment  of  discretion,  as  Davenant,  late  Bishop 
•of  Salisbury,  besides  divers  others,  hath  learnedly  made  ap- 
pear in  his  book,  De  judice  controversiarum ;  where  also 
the  power  of  king*  in  matters  of  religion  is  solidly  and  im- 
partially determined.  Two  words  only  I  add.  One  is,  that 
notwithstanding  all  that  is  pretended  from  antiquity,  a  bishop 
having  sole  power  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction  will  never 
be  found  in  prime  -antiquity.  The  other  is,  that  many  of  the 
fathers  did,  unwittingly,  bring  forth  that  Antichrist  which 
•was  conceived  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  therefore  are 
competent  judges  in  the  question  of  the  hierarchy.  .And 
upon  the  other  part,  the  lights  of  the  Christian  Church  at 
and  since  the.  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  have  discovered 
many  secrets  concerning  the  Antichrist  and  his  hierarchy, 
which  were  not  known  to  former  ages ;  and  divers  of  the 


204  PURITAMRM 

learned  in  the  Roman  Church  have  not  feared  to  pronounce, 
That  whosoever  denies  the  true  and  literal  sense  of  many 
texU  of  Scripture  to  have  been  found  out  in  this  last  age,  is 
unthankful  to  God,  who  hath  so  plentifully  poured  forth  his 
Spirit  upon  the  children  of  this  generation  ;  and  ungrateful 
towards  those  men  who,  with  so  great  pains,  so  happy  suc- 
cess, and  so  much  benefit  to  God's  Church,  have  travailed 
therein.  This  might  be  instanced  in  many  places  of  Scrip- 
ture. I  wind  together  Biotrephes  and  the  mystery  of  ini- 
quity:  the  one  as  an  old  example  of  Church  ambition, 
which  was  also  too  palpable  in  the  apostles  themselves,  and 
the  other  as  a  cover  of  ambition,  afterwards  discovered  ; 
which  two  brought  forth  the  great  mystery  of  the  Papacy  at 
last. 

6.  Although  your  majesty  be  not  made  a  judge  of  the 
reformed  churches,  yet  you  so  far  censure  them  and  their 
actions,  as  without  bishops,  in  your  judgment,  they  cannot 
have  a  lawful  ministry,  nor  a  due -administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments. Against  which  dangerous  and  destructive  opinion,  I 
did  allege  what  I  supposed  youx  majesty  would  not  have 
denied.  1st,  That  presbyters  without  a  bishop  may  ordain 
other  presbyters.  2d,  That  baptism  administered  by  such  a 
presbyter,  is  another  thing  than  baptism-  administered  by  a 
private  person  or  by  a  midwife.  Of  the  first  your  majesty 
calls  for  proof.  I  told  before,  that  in  the  Scripture  it  is  man- 
ifest, (1  Tim.  iv.  14.)  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
which  was  given  thee  by  the  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbyter ;"  so  it  is  in  the  English  trans- 
lation. And  the  word  presbyter}',  so  often  as  it  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  always  signifies  the  persons,  and  not 
the  office.  And  although  the  offices  of  bishop  and  presbyter 
were  distinct,  yet  doth  not  the  presbyter  derive  his  power  of 
order  from  the  bishop.  The  evangelists  were  inferior  to  the 
apostles ;  yet  had  they  their  power  not  from  the  apostles,  but 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM  205 

from  Christ.  The  same  I  affirm  of  the  seventy  disciples, 
who  had  their  power  immediately  from  Christ,  no  less  than 
the  apostles  had  theirs.  It  may,  upon  better  reason,  be 
averred  that  the  bishops  have  their  power  from  the  Pope, 
than  that  presbyters  have  their  power  from  the  prelates.  It 
is  true,  Jerome  saith,  Quid  facit,  excepta  ordinatione,  epis- 
copus,  quod  non  facit  presbyter  1  But  in  the.  same  place  he 
proves  from  Scripture,  "that  episcopus  and  presbyter  are  one 
and  the  same  ;  and  therefore,  when  he  appropriates  ordina- 
tion to  the  bishop,  he  speaketh  of  the  degenerated  custom 
of  his  time.  Secondly,  Concerning  baptism,  a  private  per- 
son may  perform  the  external  action  and  rites  both  of  it  and 
of  the  eucharist ;  yet  is  neither  of  the  two  a  sacrament,  or 
hath  any  efficacy,  unless  it  be  done  by  him  that  is  lawfully 
called  thereunto,  or  by  a  person  made  public,  and  clothed 
with  authority  by  ordination.  This  error  in  the  matter  of 
baptism  is  begot  by  another  error,  of  the  absolute  necessity 
of  baptism. 

7.  To  that  which  hath  been  said  concerning  your  majes- 
ty's oath,  I  shall  add  nothing,  not  being  willing  to  enter  upon 
the  question  of  the  subordination  of  the  Church  to  the  civil 
power,  whether  the  king  or  parliament,  or  both,  and  to 
either  .of  them  in  their  own  place.  Suoh  an  headship  as  the 
kings  of  England  have  claimed,  and  such  a  supremacy  as 
the  two  Houses  of  Parliament  crave,  with  the  appeals  from 
the  supreme  ecclesiastical  judicature  to  them,  as  set  over  the 
Church  in  the  same  line  of  subordination,  I  do  utterly  dis- 
claim, upon  such  reasons  as  give  myself  satisfaction  ;  although 
no  man  shall  be  more  willing  to  submit  to  civil  powers,  each 
one  in  their  own  place,  and  more  unwilling  to  make  any 
trouble,  than  myself.  Only  concerning  the  application  of 
the  generals  of  an  oath  to  the  particular  case  now  in  hand  ; 
under  favour,  I  conceive  not  how  the  clergy  of  the  Church 
of  England  is,  or  ought  to  be,  principally  intended  in  your 


206 

oath.  For  although  the}'  were  esteemed  to  be  the  represen- 
tative Church,  yet  even  that  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church 
collective,  salus  populi  being  suprcma  lex,  and  to  be  princi- 
pally intended.  Your  majesty  knows  it  was  so  in  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  where  the  like  alteration  was  made. 
And  if  nothing  of  this  kind  can  be  done  without  'the  con- 
sent of  the  clergy,  what  reformation  can  be  expected  in 
France  or  Spain,  or  Rome  itself?  It  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  the  pope  or  prelates  will  consent  to  their  own  ruin. 

8.  I  will  not  presume  upon  any  secret  knowledge  of  the 
opinions  held  by  the  king  your  majesty's  father  of  famous 
memory,  they  being  much  better  known  to  your  majesty  ; 
I  did  only  produce  what  was  professed  by  him  before  the 
world.     And  although  prayers  and  tears  be  the  arms  of  the 
Church,  yet  it  is  neither  acceptable  to  God,  nor  conducible 
for  kings  and  princes,  to  force  the  Church  to  put  on  these 
arms.     Nor  could  I  ever  hear  a  reason,  why  a  necessary  de- 
fensive war  against  unjust  violence  is  unlawful,  although  it 
be  joined  with  offence  and  invasion  which  is  intended  for  de- 
fence, but  so  that  arms  are  laid  down  when  the  offensive  war 
ceaseth  ;  by  which  it  doth  appear  that  the  war  on  the  other 
side  was,  in  the  nature  thereof,  defensive. 

9.  Concerning  the  forcing  of  conscience,  which  I  proter- 
mitted  in  my  other  paper,   I   am  forced  now,  but  without 
forcing  of  my  conscience,  to  speak  of  it.     Our  conscience 
may  be  said  to  be  forced  either  by  ourselves,  or  by  others. 
By  ourselves,  1st,  When  we  stop  the  ear  of  our  conscience, 
and  will  not  hearken,  or  give  place  to  information,  resolving 
obstinately,  Ne  si  persuaseris,  persuadebis ;    which  is  no 
less  than  a  resisting  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  hardening 
of  our  hearts.     2d,  Or  when  we  stop  the  mouth  and  sup- 
press the  clamours  of  our  conscience ;  resolving  rather  to 

uffer  the  worm  to  gnaw,  and  the  fire  to  burn  inwardly,  than 
o  make  profession  of  that  we  are  convinced  to  be  truth. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  207 

3d,  Or  when  we  sear  our  conscience  as  with  an  hot  iron, 
that  it'  becometh  senseless,  which  is  the  punishment  of  the 
former  ;  unto  which  is  opposed  the  truly  tender  conscience, 
such  as  Josiah  had,  (2  Kings,  xxii  19.)  Again,  our  con- 
science is  said  to  be  forced  by  others,  1st,  When  they  obtrude 
upon  us  what  is  in  itself  evil  and  unlawful ;  which  if  we 
admit  against  our  own  conscience,  we  sin  two  ways :  one  is, 
by  doing  that  which  is  in  itself  evil  and  unlawful ;  the  other 
is,  by  doing  it  against  a  dictate  of  conscience,  which  is  a 
contempt  of  God,  whose  vicegerent  ,it  is.  2d.  Or  when 
others  urge  us  to  do  that  which  is  in  itself  good,  or  may 
lawfully  be  done,  but  through  error  of  conscience  we  judge 
it  to  be  evil  and  unlawful ;  in  this  case,  if  we  do  not  that 
which  is  pressed  upon  us,  we  sin,  because  the  thing  is  good 
and  lawful ;  and  if  we  do  it,  we  sin,  because  we  do  against 
our  conscience,  which  in  this  case  bindeth,  but  obligeth  not 
And  yet  there  is  a  way  to  escape  out  of  this  labyrinth,  it  be- 
ing repugnant  to  the  equity  of  the  will  of  God  to  lay  a 
necessity .  of  sinning  upon  any  man :  the  only  way  is,  to  lay 
aside  such  a  conscience,  it  being  a  part  of  the  old  man  which 
we  are  commanded  to  put  off;  otherwise,  we  being  suffi- 
ciently informed,  and  yet  cleaving  to  our  old  error,  we  rather 
do  violence  to  our  conscience  ourselves,  than  suffer  violence 
from  others.  The  application,  for  answering  the  query,  I 
leave  to  your  majesty. 

Newcastle,  June  17,  1646. 

V.  His  MAJEBTY'S  Third  Paper  for  MR.  ALEXANDER 
HENDERSON,  in  reply  to  his  Second  Paper. 

June  22,  1646. 

1.  IT  were  arrogance,  besides  loss  of  time,  in  me  to  vie 
preambles  witli  you,  for  it  is  truth  I  seek,  and  neither  praise 
nor  victory ;  wherefore  I  shall  only  insist  upon  those  things 
which  are  merely  necessary  to  my  own  satisfaction,  in  order 


208  PURITANISM 

to  wliich  I  desired  the  assistance  of  pome  divines ;  where- 
upon I  will  insist  no  farther,  save  only  to  wish  that  you  may 
not  (as  I  have  known  many  mm  do)  lose  time  by  being 
mistaken  in  the  way  to  save  it  ;  wherein  I  have  only  sought 
to  disburthen  myself,  but  to  lay  no  blame  upoa  you,  and  so 
I  leave  it. 

2.  Nor  will  I  say  more  of  the  second  than  this,  that  I  am 
glad  you  have  so  well  approved  of  what  I  have  said  con- 
cerning my  education  and  reason  ;  but  then,  remember,  that 
another  man's  will  is  at  least  as  weak  a  ground  to  build  my 
faith  upon  as  my  former  education. 

3.  In  this  there  are  two  points ;  first,  concerning  the  re- 
forming power,  then,  anent  the   English  reformation.     For 
the  first,  I  confess  you  now  speak  clearly,  which  before  you 
did  but  darkly  mention,  wherein  I   shall  mainly  differ  with 
you,  until  you  shall  shew  me  better  reason.     Yet  thus  far  I 
will  go  along  with  you,  that  when  a  general  council  cannot 
be  had,  several  kingdoms  may  reform  themselves,  which  is 
learnedly  and  fully  proved  by  the  late  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury in  his  disputation  against  Fisher ;  but  that  the  infe- 
rior magistrates  or  people  (take  it  which  way  you  will)  have 
this  power,  I  utterly  deny ;  for  which,  by  your  favour,  you 
have  yet  made  no  sufficient  proof  to  my  judgment.     Indeed, 
if  you  could  have  brought,  or  can  bring  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture' for  this  opinion,  I  would,  and  will  yet,  with  all  reverence 
submit ;  but  as  for  your  examples  out  of  the  Old  Testament, 
in  my  mind,  they  rather  make  for  me  than  against  me,  ajl 
those  reformations  being  made  by  kings:  and  it  is  a  good 
probable  (though  I  will  not  say  convincing)  argument,  that 
if  God  would  have  approved  of  a  popular  reforming  way, 
there  were  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel  sufficiently  negligent 
and  ill  to  have  made   such  examples  by  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, the   16th  chapter  of  Numbers  shews  clearly  how  God 
disapproves  of  such  courses.     But  I  forget  this  assertion  is 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  209 

to  be  proved  by  you  $  yet  I  may  put  you  in  the  way  : 
wherefore  let  me  tell  you  that  this  pretended  power  in  the 
people  must  (as  all  others)  either  be  directly  or  else  declara- 
torily  by  approbation  given  by  God  ;  which  how  soon  you 
can  do,  I  submit;  otherwise  you  prove  nothing.  For  the 
citing  of  private  men's  opinions  (more  than  as  they  concur 
with  the  general  consent  of  the  Chureh  in  their  time)  weighs 
little  with. me,  it  being  too  well  known,  that  rebels  never 
wanted  writers  to  maintain  their  unjust  actions ;  and  though 
I  much  reverence  Bishop  Jucl's  memory,  I  never  thought 
him  infallible.  For  BUson,  I  remember  well  what  opinion 
the  king  my  father  had  of  him  for  those  opinions,  and  how 
he  shewed  him  some  favour  in  hope  of  his  recantation,  (as 
his  good  nature  made  him  do  many  things  ot  that  kind ;) 
but  whether  he  did  or  not,  I  cannot  say.  To  conclude  this 
point,  until  you  shall  prove  this  position  by  the  word  of  God, 
(as  I  will  regal  authority,)  I  shall  think  all  popular  reforma- 
tion little  better  than  rebellion ;  for  I  hold  that  "  no  authority 
is  lawful  but  that  which  is  either  directly  given,  or,"  at  least, 
"  approved  by  God."  Secondly,  Concerning  the  English 
reformation,  the  first  reason  you  bring  why  Queen  Elizabeth 
did  not  finish  it,  is,  "  because  she  took  not  away  Episco- 
pacy," the  hints  or  reasons  against  which  government  you 
say  I  take  no  notice  of;  now  I  thought  it  was  sufficient  no- 
tice, yea,  and  answer  too,  when  I  told  you  a  negative  (as  I 
conceived)  could  not  be  proved,  and  that  it  was  for  me 
to  prove  the  affirmative ;  which  I  shall  either  do,  or  yield 
the  argument,  as  soon  as  I  shall  be  assisted  with  books,  or 
such  men  of  my  opinion  who,  like  you,  have  a  library 
in  their  brain.  And  so  I  must  leave  this  particular,  until  I 
be  furnished  with  means  to  put  it  to  an  issue  ;  which  had 
been  sooner  done  if  I  could  have  had  my  will.  Indeed, 
your  second,  well  proved,  is  most  sufficient,  which  is,  That 
the  English  Church  government  is  not  builded  upon  the 


210  PURITANISM 

foundation  of  Christ  ancf  the  apostles ;  but  I  conceive  your 
probation  of  this  doubly  defective.  For  first,  albeit  our  arch- 
bishops and  bishops  should  have  professed  Church  government 
to  be  mutable  and  ambulator)-,  I  conceive  it  not  sufficient  to 
prove  your  assertion  ;  and  secondly,  I  am  confident  you 
cannot  prove  that  most  of  them  maintained  this  walking 
position,  (for  some  particulars  must  not  conclude  the  gene- 
ral,) for  which  you  must  find  much  better  arguments  than 
their  b<  injj  content  with  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and 
the  authority  and  munificence  of  princes,  or  you  will  fall 
extremely  short.  As  for  the  retaining  of  the  Roman  leaven, 
you  must  prove  it  as  well  as  say  it,  else  you  say  little.  But 
that  the  conforming  of  the  Church  discipline  to  the  civil 
policy  should  be  a  depraving  of  it,  I  absolutely  deny ;  for  I 
aver,  that  without  it,  the  Church  can  neither  flourish  nor  be 
happy.  And  for  your  last  instance,-  you  shall  do  well  to 
shew  the  prohibition  of  our  Saviour  against  addition  of  more 
officers  in  the  Church  than  he  named ;  and  yet  in  one  sense 
I  do  not  conceive  that  the  Church  of  England  hath  added 
any,  for  an  archbishop  is  only  a  distinction  for  order  of  gov- 
ernment, not  a  new  officer,  and  so  of  the  rest ;  and  of  this 
kind  I  believe  there  are  divers  now  in  Scotland,  which  you 
will  not  condemn,  as  the  moderators  of  assemblies,  and 
others. 

4.  Where  you  find  a  bishop  and  presbyter  in  Scripture  to 
be  one  and  the  same,  (which  I  deny  to  be  always  so,)  it  ia 
in  the  apostle's  time ;  now  I  think  to  prove  the  order  of 
bishops  succeeded  that  of  the  apostles,  ajid  that  the  name 
was  chiefly  altered  in  reverence  to  those  who  were  immedi- 
ately chosen  by  our  Saviour,  (albiet,  in  their  time,  they 
caused  divers  to  be  called  so,  'as .  Barnabas  and  others,)  so 
that  I  believe  this  argument  makes  little  for  you.  As  for 
yonr  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  Presbyterian  government,  it 
is  well  that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster  can  do 


NOT    GENUINE    PROTESTANTISM.  211 

more  than  Eusebius  could,  and  I. shall  believe  when  I  see  it : 
for  your  former  paper  affirms,  that  those  times  were  very 
dark  for  matter  of  fact,  and  will  be  so. still  for  me,  if  there 
be  no  clearer  arguments  to  prove  it  than  those  you  mention : 
for  because  there  were  "  divers  congregations  in  Jerusalem ;' 
Ergo,  what?  are  there  not  divers  parishes  in  one  diocese? 
(your  two  first  I  answer  but  as  one  argument,)  and  because 
"  the  apostles  met  with  those  of  the  inferior  orders  for  acts 
of  government ;"  what  then  ?  even  so  in  these  times  do  the 
deans  and  chapters,  and  many  times  those  of  the  inferior 
clergy,  assist  the  bishops.  But  I  hope  you  will  not  pretend 
to  say,  that  there  was  an  equality  between  the  apostles  and 
other  presbyters,  which  not  being,  doth  (in  my  judgment) 
quite  invalidate  these  arguments.  .  And  if  you  can  say  no 
more  for  the  churches  of  Corinth,  Ephesus,.  Thessalonica, 
&c.,  than  you  have  for  Jerusalem,  it  will  gain  no  ground  on 
me.  As  for  St.  Jerome,  it  is  well  known  he  wa«  no  great 
friend  to  bishops,  as  being  none  himself;  yet  take  him  alto- 
gether, and  you  will  find  that  he  makes  a  clear  distinction 
between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter,  as  yourself  confesses :  but 
the  truth  is,  he  was  angry  with  those  who  maintained  dea- 
cons to  b«  equal  to  presbyters. 

5.  I  am  well  satisfied  with  the  explanation  of  your  mean- 
ing concerning  the  word  fallacy,  though  I  think  to  have  had 
reason  for  saying  what  I  did;  but  by  your  favour,  I  do  not 
conceive  that  you  have  answered  the  strength  of  my  argu- 
ment, for  when  you  and  I  differ  upon  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  I  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church,  and  the  universal  consent  of  the  fathers,  to  be  judge 
between  us,  methinks  you  should  either  find  a  fitter,  or  sub- 
mit to  what  I  offer ;  neither  of  which  (to  my  understanding) 
you  have  yet  done,  nor  have  you  shewn  how,  waving  those 
judges  I  appeal  unto,  the  mischief  of  the  interpretation  by 
private  spirits  can  be  prevented.  Indeed,  if  I  cannot  prove 


212  PURITANISM 

by  antiquity  that  ordination  and  jurisdiction  belong  to  bishops, 
(thereby  clearly  distinguishing  them  from  other  presbyters,) 
I  shall  then  bejrin .  to  misdoubt  many  of  my  former  founda- 
tions ;  as  for  Bishop  Davenant,  he  is  none  of  those  to  whom 
I  have  appealed,  or  will  submit  unto.  But  for  the  exception 
you  take  to  father-,  I  take  it  to  be  a  begging  of  the  question  ; 
as  likewise  those  great  discoveries  of  secrets  not  known  to 
former  ages,  I  shall  call  new  invented  fancies,  until  particu- 
larly you  shall  prove  the  contrary  ;  and  for  your  Roman 
authors,  it  is  no  gre^t  wonder  for  them  to  seek  shifts  where- 
by to  maintain  noyelties,  as  well  as  the  Puritans.  As  for 
church  ambition,  il  doth  not  at  all  terminate  in  seeking  to  be 
pope;  for  I  take  it  to  be  no  point  of  humility  to  cirlcavour 
to  bo  independent  of  kings,  it  iK-ing  possible  that  Papacy  in 
a  multitude  may  be  as  dangerous  as  in  one. 

6.  As  I  am  no  judge  over  the  reformed  churches,  so 
neither  do  I  censure  them,  for  many  things  may  be  avow- 
able  upon  necessity,  which  otherwise  are  unlawful  ;  but 
know,  once  for  all,  that  I  esteem  nothing  the  better  because 
it  is  done  by  such  a  particular  Church,  (though  it  were  by 
the  Church  of  England,  which  I  avow  most  to  reverence  ;) 
but  I  esteem  that  Church  most  which  comes  nearest  to  the 
purity  of  the  primitive  doctrine  and  discipline,  which  I  be- 
lieve this  doth.  Now  concerning  ordination,  I  bade  you 
prove  that  presbyters  without  a  bishop  might  lawfully  ordain 
which  yet  I  conceive  you  have  not  done ;  for  (2  Tim.  i.  6.,) 
it  is  evident  that  St.  Paul  was  at  Timothy's  ordination  ;  and 
alboit  that  all  the  seventy  had  their  power  immediately  from 
Christ,  yet  it  is  as  evident  that  our  Saviour  made  a  clear 
distinction  between  the  twelve  apostles  and  the  rest  of  the 
disciples,  which  is  get  down  by  three  of  the  evangelists, 
whereof  St.  Mark  calls  it  an  ordination,  (Mark,  iii.  15  ;)  and 
St.  Luke  says,  "  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,"  &-C.  (Luke, 
vi.  13  ;)  only  St.  Matthew  doth  but  barely  enumerate  them 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  213 

by  their  name  of  distinction,  (Mat.  x.  2  ; )  I  suppose  out  of 
modesty,  himself  being  one,  and  the  other  two  being  none, 
are  more  particular.  For  the  administration  of  baptism, 
giving,  but  not  granting,  what  you  say,  it  makes  more  for 
me  than  you  ;  but  I  will  not  engage  upon  new  questions  not 
necessary  for  my  purpose. 

7.  For  my  oath,  you  do  well  not  to  enter  upon  those  ques- 
tions you  mention,  and  you  had  done  as  well  to  have  omitted 
your  instance  ;  but  out  of  discretion  I  desire  you  to  collect 
your  answer  out  of  the  last  section  ;  and  for  your  argument, 
though  the   intention  of  my  oath  be  for  the  good  of  the 
Church  collective,  therefore  can  I  be  dispensed  withal  by 
others  than  the  representative  body  ?  certainly  no  more  than 
the  people  can  dispense  with  for  any  oaths  I  took  in  their 
favours,  without  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament.     As  for 
future  reformations,  I  will  only  tell  you  that  incommodum 
non  solvit  argumentum. 

8.  For  the  king  my  fathers  opinion,  if  it  were  not  to 
spend  time  (as  I  believe  needlessly)  I  could  prove,  by  living 
and  written  testimonies,   all   and  more  than  I  have  said  of 
him,  for  his  persuasion  in  these  points  which  I  now  main- 
tain ;  and  for  your  defensive  war,  as  I  do  acknowledge  it  a 
great  sin  for  any  king  to  oppress  the  Church,  so  I  do  hold 
it   absolutely   unlawful    for    subjects,   upon   any    pretence 
whatsoever,  to  make   war,  though  defensive,   against  their 
lawful  sovereign  ;  against   which  no  less  proofs  will  make 
me  yield  but  God's  word :  and  let  me  tell  you,  that  upon 
such  points  as  these,  instances  as  well  as  comparisons  are 
odious. 

9.  Lastly,  you  mistake  the  query  in  my  first  paper  to 
which  this  pretends  to  answer ;  for  my  question  was  not 
concerning  force  of  argument  (for  I  never  doubted  the  law- 
fulness of  it,)  but  force  of  arms,  to  which,  I  conceive,  it  says 
little  or  nothing,  unless  (after  my  example)  you  refer  me  to 

'•'-"•  V"V" 


214  1'IRITAMSM 

the  former  section  :  that  which  it  doth,  is  merely  the  asking 
of  the  question,  after  a  fine  discourse  of  the  several  ways 
of  persuading  rather  than  forcing  of  conscience.  I  close 
up  this  paper,  desiring  you  to  take  notice,  that  there  is  none 
of  these  sections  but  I  could  have  enlarged  to  many  more 
lines,  some  to  whole  pages  ;  yet  I  chose  to  be  thus  brief, 
knowing  you  will  understand  more  by  a  word  than  others  by 
a  long  discourse  ;  trusting  likewise  to  your  ingenuity,  that 
reason  epitomized  will  weigh  as  much  with  you  as  if  it  were 
at  large.  C.  R. 

June  22,  164G. 

VI.  MR.  ALEXANDER  HE.NDEUSO.V'S  Third  Paprr  fur  HIB 
MAJESTY,  concerning  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  and 
Practice  of  the  Church. 

July  2,  164G. 

HAVING,  in  my  former  papers,  pressed  the  steps  of  your 
majesty's  propositions,  and  finding  by  your  majesty's  last 
paper,  controversies  to  be  multiplied  (I  believe)  beyond  your 
majesty's  intentions  in  the  beginning,"  as  concerning  the  re- 
forming power,  the  reformation  of  the  Church  of  England, 
the  difference  betwixt  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter,  the  warrants 
of  Presbyterian  government,  the  authority  of  interpreting 
Scripture,  the  taking  and  keeping  of  public  oaths,  the  forc- 
ing of  conscience,  and  many  oth? r  inferior  and  subordinate 
questions,  which  are  branches  of  those  main  controversies  ; 
all  which,  in  a  satisfactory  manner  to  determine  in  few 
words,  I  leave  to  more  presuming  spirits,  who  either  see  no 
knots  of  difficulties,  or  can  find  a  way  rather  to  cut  them 
asunder  than  to  unloose  them  ;  yet  will  I  not  use  any  tergi- 
versation, nor  do  I  decline  to  offer  my  humble  opinion,  with 
the  reasons  thereof,  in  their  own  time,  concerning  each  of 
them ;  which,  in  obedience  to  your  majesty's  command,  I 


?TOf   GEXUIXE    JftlOTESTANTlSM.  2l5 


have  begun  to  do  already.  Only,  sir,  by  your  majesty's 
favourable  permission,  for  the  greater  expedition,  and  that 
the  present  velitations  may  be  brought  to  some  issue,  I  am 
bold  to  treat  that  the  method  may  be  a  little  altered,  and  I 
may  have  leave  now  to  begin  at  a  principle,  and  that  which 
should  have  been  inter  pracognila,  I  mean  the  rule  by 
which  we  are  to  proceed,  and  to  determine  the  present  con* 
troversy  of  Church  policy,  without  which  we  will  be  led  into 
a'  labyrinth,  and  want  a  thread  to  wind  us  oot  again.  In 
your  majesty's  first  paper,  the  "  universal  custom  of  the 
primitive  Church  "  is  conceived  to  be  the  rule  ;  in  the  second 
paper,  section  5,  the  "  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  and 
the  universal  consent  of  fathers,"  is  made  a  convincing 
argument,  when  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  doubtful  5 
in  your  third  paper,  section  5,  "  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church  and  the  universal  consent  of  fathers  "  is  made  judge  : 
and  I  know  that  nothing  is  more  ordinary  in  this  question 
than  to  allege,  "  antiquity,  perpetual  succession,  universal 
consent  of  the  fathers,"  and  the  "  universal  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church,"  according  to  the  rule  of  Augustine,  Qu»d 
universa  tenet  ecclesia,  nee  a  Concilia  institutum,  sed  sem* 
per  reteniutn  est,  non  nisi  authoritate  apostolicd  traditum 
rectissime  creditur.  There  is  in  this  argument,  at  the  first 
view,  so  much  appearance  of  reason,  that  it  may  much 
work  upon  a  modest  mind  ;  yet,  being  well  examined  and 
rightly  weighed,  it  will  be  found  to  be  of  no  great  weight  : 
for  beside  that  the  minor  will  never  be  made  good  in  the  be- 
half of  a  diocesan  bishop  having  sole  power  of  ordination  and 
jurisdiction,  there  being  a  multitude  of  fathers  who  maintain 
"  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  one  and  the  same  order  ;"  I 
shall  humbly  offer  some  few  considerations  about  the  major, 
because  it  hath  been  an  inlet  to  many  dangerous  errors,  and 
hath  proved  a  mighty  hindrance  and  obstruction  to  reforma- 
tion of  religion. 


216  PURITANISM 

1.  I  desire  it  may  bo  considered,  that  whiles  some  make 
two  rules  for  defining  controversies,  the  word  of  God  and 
antiquity,  (which  thry  will  have  to   be   received  with  equal 
veneration,)  or,  as  the  Papists  call  them,  canonical  authority 
and  catholic  tradition,  and  others  make  Scripture  to  be  the 
only  rule,  and  antiquity  the  authentic  interpreter, — the  latter 
of  the  two  seems  to  me  to  be  the  greater  error  ;  because  the 
first  setteth  up  a  parallel  in  the  same  degree  with  Scripture, 
but  this  would  create  a  superior  in  the  higher  degree  above 
Scripture.     For  the  interpretation   of   the  fathers  shall  be 
the  A<:T/,  and  accounted  Ihe  very  cause   and   reason  for 
which   we   conceive  and  believe   such  a  place  of  Scripture 
to  have  such  a  sense  ;  and  thus  men  shall   have  "  dominion 
over  our  faith,"  (against  2  Cor.   i.  24.)     "Our  faith  shall 
stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  and  not  in  the  power  of  God," 
(1   Cor    ii.  5.)     "And   Scripture  shall   be  of  private   inter- 
pretation ,  for  the   prophecy  came  not  of  old  by  the  will  of 
man,"  (2  Pet.  i.  20,  22.)       Nisi,  homini  Deus  placuerit, 
Deus  non  erit ;  homo  jam  Deo  propitius  ease  debebit,  saith 
Tertullian. 

2.  That  Scripture  cannot  be  authentically  interpreted  but 
by  Scripture,  is  manifest  from  Scripture.     The  Levites  gave 
the  sense  of  the  law  by  no  other  means  but   by  Scripture 
itself,  (Neh.  viii.  8.)     Our  Saviour,  for  example  to  us,  gave 
the  true  sense  of  Scripture  against  the  deprivations  of  Satan, 
by  comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture,  and  not  by  alleging 
any  testimonies  out  of  the   Rabbins,   (Mat.  iv.)     And  the 
apostles  in  their  epistles,  used  no  other  help  but  the  diligent 
comparing  of  prophetical  writings;  likeas  the  apostle  Peter 
will  have  to  compnre   the  clearer  light  of  the  apostles  with 
the  more  obscure  light  of  the  proph"ts,  (2  Pet.  i.  19.)     And 
when  we  betake   ourselves  to  the  fathers,  we  have  need  to 
take  heed  that,  witli  the  Papists,  we  accuse  not  the  Scrip- 
tures of  obscurity  or  imperfections. 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  217 

3.  The  fathers  themselves  (as  they  are  cited  by  Protes- 
tant writers)  hold  this  conclusion,  that  Scripture  is  not  to  be 
interpreted  but  by  Scripture  itself.    To  this  purpose,  amongst 
many  other  testimonies,  they  bring  the  saying  of  Tertul- 
lian,  Surge,  veritas,  ipsa  scripturas  tuas  interpretare,  quam 
consuetudo  non  novit ;  nam  sit  nossit,  non  esset :  if  it  knew 
Scripture,  it  would  be  ashamed  of  itself,  and  cease  to  be  any 
more. 

4.  That  some  errors  have  been  received  and  continued 
for  a  long  time  in  the  Church.     The  error  of  free-will,  be- 
ginning at  Justin  Martyr,  continued  till  the  time  of  reforma- 
tion, although  it  was  rejected  by  Augustine,  as  the  divine 
right  of   Episcopacy   was   opposed   by    others.     The    error 
about  the  vision  of  God,  "  That  the  souls  of  saints  departed 
see  not  the  face  of  God  till  the  judgment  of  the  great  day," 
was  held  by  "universal  consent.     The  same  may  be  .said   of 
the  error  of  the  Millenares ;  and  which  more  nearly  touch- 
eth  upon  the  present  question,   the  ancients  erred   grossly 
about  the  "antichrist"   and  "  mystery  of  iniquity,"  which 
did  begin  to  work  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. '  Many  other 
instances  might  be  brought  to  prove  such  universal  practice 
of  the  Church,  as  was  not  warranted  by  the  apostles,  as  in 
the  rites  of  baptism  and  prayer,  and  •  the  forming  up  and 
drawing  together  of  the  articles  of  that  creed  that  is  called 
symbolum  apostolicum,  the  observation  of  many  feasts  and 
fasts  both  anniversary  and  weekly. 

5.  That  it  is  not  a  matter  so  incredible  or  impossible  as 
some  would  have  it'  appear  to  be,  for  the  primitive  Church  to 
have  made  a  sudden  defection  from  the  apostolical  purity. 
The  people  of  Israel,  in  the  short  time  of  Moses  his  absence 
on  the  mount,  turned  aside  quickly,  and  fell  into  horrible 
idolatry,    (Exod.  xxxii.)     Soon  after  the   death  of  Joshua, 
and  the  elders  that  had  seen  the  great  works  which  the 
Lord  had  done  for  Israel,  there  arose  another  generation 


218  PURITANISM 

after  them,  which  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  (Judges, 
ii.)  Soon  after  the  building  of  tho  temple,  and  setting  of 
religion  by  David  and  Solomon,  the  worship  of  God  was 
defiled  with  idolatry :  when  Rehoboam  had  established  the 
kingdom,  he  forsook  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  all  Israel  with 
him,  (2  Chron.  xxii.  1.)  And  the  apostle  says  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  (Gal.  i.  6,)  "I  marvel  that  you  are  so  soon  removed 
unto  another  gospel."  Why  then  shall  we  tliink  it  strange, 
that  in  tho  matter  of  discipline  there  should  be  a  sudden  de- 
fection, especially  it  being  begun  in  the  time  of  the  apostles? 
I  know  it  is  a  common  opinion,  but  I  believe  there  be  no 
strong  reasons  for  it,  that  the  Church  which  was  nearest 
the  times  of  the  apostles  was  tho  most  pure  and  perfect 
Church. 

6.  That  it  is  impossible  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
universal  consent  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church :  for 
many  of  the  fathers  wrote  nothing  at  all,  many  of  their  wri- 
tings are  perished,  (it  may  be  that  both  of  these  have  dis- 
sented from  the  rest,)  many  of  the  writings  which  we  have 
under  their  names  are  supposititious  and  counterfeit,  espe- 
cially about  Episcopacy,  which  was  the  foundation  of  papal 
primacy.  The  rule  of  Augustine  aforementioned  doth  too 
much  favour  traditions,  and  is  not  to  be  admitted  without 
cautions  and  exceptions. 

Many  the  like  considerations  may  be  added,  but  these 
may  be  sufficient  to  prove,  that  tho  unanimous  consent  of  the 
fathers  and  the  universal  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  is 
no  sure  ground  of  authentical  interpretation  of  Scripture.  I 
remember  of  a  grave  divine  in  Scotland,  much  honoured  by 
King  James  of  happy  memory,  who  did  often  profess  that 
he  did  learn  more  of  one  page  of  John  Calvin  than  of  a 
whole  treatise  of  Augustine.  Nor  can  there  be  any  good 
reason  (many  there  be  against  it)  why  the  ancients  should 
be  so  far  preferred  to  the  modern  doctors  of  the  reformed 


STOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  219 

churches,  and  the  one  in  a  manner  deified,  and  the  other 
vilified.  It  is  but  a  poor  reason  that  some  give,/ama  mira- 
trix  senioris  ccvi,  and  is  abundantly  answered  by  the  apolo- 
gist for  divine  providence.  If  your  majesty  be  -still  unsatis- 
fied concerning  the  rule,  I  know  not  to  what  purpose  I  should 
proceed,  or  trouble  your  majesty  any  more. 

VII.  His  MAJESTY'S  Fourth  Paper  for  MR.  ALEXANDER 
HENDERSON. 

July  3,  1646. 

I  SHALL  very  willingly  follow  the  method  you  have  begun 
in  your  third  paper ;  but  I  do  not  conceive  that  my  last 
paper  multiplies  more  controversies  than  my  first  gave  occa- 
sion for ;  having  been  so  far  from  augmenting  the  heads  of 
«rar  disputation,  that  I  have  omitted  answering  many  things 
in  both  your  papers,  expressly  tp  avoid  raising  of  new  and 
needless  questions,  desiring  to  have  only  so  many  debated  as 
are  simply  necessary  to  shew,  whether  or  not  "  I  may,  with 
a  safe  conscience,  give  way  to  the  alteration  of  Church  gov- 
ernment in  England."  And,  indeed,  I  like  •  very  well  to 
begin  with  the  settling  of  the  rule  by  which  we  are  to  pro- 
ceed and  determine  the  present  controversy  ;  to  which  pur- 
pose (as  I  conceive)  my  third  paper  shews  you  an  excellent 
way,  for  there  I  offer  you  a  judge  between  us,  or  desire  you 
to  find  out  a  better,  which,  to  my  judgment,  you  have  not 
yet  done,  (though  you  have  sought  to  invalidate  mine  ;)  for, 
if  you  understand  to  have  offered  the  Scripture,  though  no 
man  shall  pay  more  reverence,  or  submit  more  humbly  to  it 
than  myself,  yet  we  must  find  some  rule  to  judge  betwixt 
us,  when  you  and  I  differ  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  self- 
same text,  or  it  can  never  determine  our  questions.  As  for 
example,  I  say  you  misapply  that  of  2  Cor.  i.  14.  to  me,  (let 
others  answer  for  themselves,)  for  I  know  not  how  I  make 
other  men  to  have  "  dominion  over  my  faith,"  when  I  make 


220  PURITANISM 

them  only  serve  lo  approve  my  reason.  Nor  do  I  conceive 
how  1  Cor.  ii.  5.  can  be  applied  to  this  purpose  ;  f«r  there 
St.  Paul  only  shews  the  difference  between  divine  and  hu 
man  eloquence,  making  no  mention  of  any  kind  of  inter- 
pretation throughout  tho  whole  chapter,  as  indeed  Peter 
does,  (2  Pet. 'i.  20.)  which,  I  conceive,  makes  for  me  :  for, 
since  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  any  private  inter- 
pretation, first,  I  infer  that  Scripture  is  to  be  interpreted,  for 
else  the  apostle  would  have  omitted  the  word  private ; 
secondly,  that  at  least  the  consent  of  many  learned  divinea 
is  necessary,  and  so,  a  fortiori,  that  of  the  catholic  Church 
ought  to  be  an  authentic  judge,  when  men  differ.  And  is 
it  a  good  argument,  because  (Matth.  iv.  4,  7,  10.)  Scripture 
is  best  interpreted  by  itself,  therefore  that  all  other  interpre- 
tations are  unlawful  ?  Certainly  you  cannot  think  it.  Thus, 
having  shewed  you  that  we  differ  about  the  meaning  of  the 
Scripture,  and  are  like  to  do  so,  certainly  there  ought  to  be 
for  this,  as  well  as  other  things,  a  rule  or  a  judge  between  us, 
to  determine  our  differences,  or  at  least  to  make  our  proba- 
tions and  arguments  relevant ;  therefore  evading  for  thia 
time  to  answer  your  six  considerations,  (not,  I  assure  you, 
for  the  difficulty  of  them,  but  the  starting  of  lie  w  questions,) 
I  desire  you  only  to  shew  me  a  better  than  what  I  have 
offered  unto  yoii.  C.  R. 

Newcastle,  July  3,  1646. 

VIII.  His  MAJESTY'S  Fifth  Paper  for  Mr.  ALEXANDER 
HENDERSON:  A  Particular  Answer  to  Mr.  Alexander 
Henderson's  Third  Paper. 

July  16,  1646. 

UNTIL  yon  shall  find  out  a  fitter  way  to  decide  our  differ- 
ence in  opinion,  concerning  interpretation  of  Scripture,  than 
the  consent  of  the  fathers  and  the  universal  practice  of  the 
primitive  church,  I  cannot  but  pass  my  judgment  aiient 


JfOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  221 

those  six  considerations  which  you  offered  to  invalidate  those 
authorities  that  I  so  much  reverence. 

1.  In  the  first,  you  mention  two  rules  for  defining  of  con- 
troversies, and  seek  a  most  odd  way  to  confute  them,  as  I 
think  ;  for  you  allege,  that  there  is  more  attributed  to  them 
than  I  believe  you  can  prove,  by  the  consent  of  most  learned 
men,  (there  being  no  question  but  there  are  always  some 
flattering  fools  that  can  commend  nothing  but  with  hyper- 
bolic expressions,)   and  you  know  that  supposito  quolibet, 
sequitur  quidlibet.     Besides,  do  you  think,  that  albeit  some 
ignorant  fellows  should  attribute  more  power  to  presbyters 
than  is  really  due  unto  them,  that  thereby  their  just  rever- 
ence and  authority  is  diminished !     So  I  sec  no  reason  why 
I  may  not  safely  maintain  that  the  interpretation  of  fathers 
is   a  most  excellent  strengthening  to  my  opinion,  though 
others  should  attribute  the   cause  and  reason  of  their  faith 
unto  it. 

2.  As  there  is  no  question  but  that  Scripture  is  far  the 
best  interpreter  of  itstlf,  so  I  see  nothing  in  this,  negatively 
proved,  to  exclude  any  other,  notwithstanding  your  positive 
affirmation. 

3.  Not  in  the  next ;  for  I  hope  you  will  not  be  the  first  to 
condemn  yourself,  me,  and  innumerable  others  who  yet  un- 
blameably  have  not  tied  themselves  to  this  rule. 

4.  If  this  you  only  intend  to  prove,  that  errors  were  al- 
ways breeding;  in  the  Church,  I  shall  not  deny  it ;  yet  that 
makes  little  (as.  I  conceive)   to  your  purpose.     But  if  your 
meaning  be,  to  accuse  the  .universal  practice  of  the  Church 
with  error,  I  must  iay,  it  is  a  very  bold  undertaking,  and  (if 
you  cannot  justify  yourself   by  clear  places  in  Scripture 
much  to  be  blamed :  wherein  you  must  not  allege  that  to  be 
universally  received  which  was  not ;  as  I  dare  say  that  the 
controversy  about  free-will  was  never  yet  decided  by  oecu- 
menical or  general  council ;  nor  must  you  presume  to  call 


2iJ2  PVHITA.MKM 

that  an  error  which  really  the  catholic  Church  maintained 
(an  in  rites  of  baptism,  forum  of  prayer,  observation  of  feasts, 
&c.)  except  you  can  prove  it  so  by  the  word  of  God  ;  and  it 
is  not  enough  to  say  that  such  a  thing  was  not  warranted 
by  the  apostles,  but  you  must  prove  by  th*ir  doctrine  that 
such  a  thing  was  unlawful,  of  else  the  practice  of  the  Church 
is  warrant  enough  for  me  to  follow  and  obey  that  custom, 
whatsoever  it  be,  and  think  it  good  :  and  1  shall  believe  that 
the  apostles'  creed  *ras  'made  by  them  (such  reverence  I 
bear  to  the  Church's  traditions)  until  other  authors  be  cer- 
tainty found  out. 

5.  I  was  taught  that  de  po»se  ad  esse  was  no  good  argu- 
ment ;  aud  Indeed,  to  me,  it  is  incredible  that  any  custom 
of  the  catholic  Church  was  erroneous,   which  was  not  con- 
tradicted by  orthodox  le'arned  men  in  the  times  of  their  first 
practice,  as  is.  easily  perceived-tliat  all  those  defections  were 
(some  of  them  may  be  justly  called  rebellious)  which  you 
mention.    .        .  • 

6.  1  deny  it  is  impossible  (though  I  confess  it  difficult)  to 
•come  to  the  knowledge  of  the -universal  consent  and  practice 
of  the  primitive'  Church ;  therefore,  I  confess-,  a  man  ought 
to  be  careful  how  to  believe  things  of  this  nature  ;  wherefore 
2  conceive  this  to  be  only  an  argument  for  caution. 

My  conclusion  i.s.  that  albeit  I  never  esteemed  any  autho- 
rity equal  to  the  Scriptures,  yet  I  do  think  the  unanimous 
•consent  of  the  fathers,  and  the  universal  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church,  to  be  the  best  and  most  authentical  inter- 
preters of  God's  word,  and  consequently  the  fittest  judge* 
between  me  .and  you,  when  we  differ,  until  you  shall  find  me 
better.  For  example;  I  think  you,  for  the  present,  the  best 
preacher  in  Newcastle,  yet  I  believe  you  may  err,  and  pos- 
sibly a  better  preacher  may  come  :  but  till  then  I  must  retain 
my  opinion.  C..R. 

Newcastle,  July  1G,  164p- 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  '223 


NOTE    E.    . 

IJST  OF  CONTROVERSIAL  PUBLICATIONS  ON  THE  DOCTRINE  AND 
DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  CHURCH,  PUBLISHED  IN  THE  UNITED 
STATES  BEFORE  THE  REVOLUTION,  AS  FAR  AS  KNOWN. 

1723.  CHEEKLEY,  Mr.  John,  afterwards  Rev.    Discourse  concerning 
Episcopacy,  Stc. 

1724.  -  ?    The  Modest  Proof  of  the  order  oftht  Churches. 

1724.  DICKINSON,  Rev.  Jonathan.    (Pres.)    Elizabethtown,  N.  J.    A 
Defence  of  Presbyterian  Ordination,  in  reply  to  The  Modest 
Proof,  &c. 

1725.  DICKINSON,  and  Rev.  SAMUEL  JOHNSON,  D.  D.    (Epis.)    This 
year  a  discussion  was  carried  on,  in  writing,  between  a  parish. 
oner  of  Dr.  J.  and  Mr.  Dickinson,  Dr.  J.  writing  the  answer  of 
his  parishoner.     Mr.   D.  subsequently  published  his   articles, 
revised  and  enlarged,  when  Dr.  J.  published  his  replies. 
WIGGLESWOKTH,  Rev.  Edmund,  D.  D.,  of  Cambridge,  Mass_ 
Answer  to  Modest  Proof,  &c. 

1727.  FOXCROFT,  Rev.  Thomas,  of  Boston,  (Pres.)   stepped  iu  and 
published  A  Defence  of  Presbyterian  Ordination. 
JOHNSON,  Rev.  Dr.  S.,  published  a  Reply  to  the  same. 

1728.  CHEEKLEY,  Mr.  J.,  Speech  upon  his  trial  for  libel,  &c. 
FISHES,  Rev.  Hugh.    (Epis.)    The  Right  of  Private  Judgment. 
A  Sermon. 

1730.  SMITH,  Rev.  Josiah.    (Pres.)     The  Divine  Right  of  Private 
Judgment. 

1732.  GRAHAM,  Rev.  John,  (Pres.)  Southbury,  Conn.    The  Church  of 

England.    A  Ballad. 

1733.  JOHNSON,  Rev.  Dr.  S.    Plain  Reasons  for  conforming  to  the 

Church  ;  a  reply  to  Mr.  Graham. 

1734.  GRAHAM,  Rev.  J.    Reply  to  Plain  Reasons. 
JOHNSON,  Rev.  Dr.  S.    Answer  to  the  Reply,  See. 

1735.  GKAHAM,  Rev.  J.    Rejoinder  to  the  Answer,  &<;. 

JOHNSON,  Rev.  Dr.  S.    A  -third  tract,  Ifc.,  which  ended  this 
dispute.  *  »i. 

1736.  DICKINSON,  Rev.  J.     In  a  sermon,  The  Vanity  of  human  insti- 
tutions in  the  worship  of  Goo. 

BEACH,  Rev.  John.    (Epis.)    A  Vindication  of  the  worship  of 
the  Church  of  England. 


224  PURITANISM 

1737.  DICKINSON,  Rev.  J.    A   Defence  of  kit   Sermon  against  tht 
exception*  of  Mr.  Brack. 

BEACH,  Rev.  J.  An  Appeal  to  the  unprejudiced,  in  a  Supple- 
ment to  the  Vindication,  tf-c..,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Dickinson. 

1738.  DICKINSON,  Rev.  J.     Thr  reasonableness  of  nonconformity  to 
the  Church  of  England  in  points  of  worship;    a  reply  to  Mr.  B. 
BEACH,  Rev.  J.     On  the  duty  of  taring  our  enemies,  which  »ecius 
to  have  ended  this  controvcmy. 

1743.  DICKINSON, Rev.  J.  On  t  he  nature  and  necessity  of  regeneration 
with  remarks  on  Dr.  Waterland's  Discourse  on  regeneration. 

1744.  WKTMORE,  Rev.  James,  of  Rye,  N.  Y.,  some  time  a  Congrega- 
tional minister  in  North  Haven,  Conn.     A  Defence  of  Water 
land's  Discourse  on  Regeneration. 

JOHNSON,  Rev.  Dr.  S.  A  Letter  from  Aristodei  to  Anthadei 
on  the  divine  sovereignty  and  promises. 

1745.  BEACH,  Rev.  J.     A  Sermon  on  Rom.  vi.  23,  on  the  freeness  and 
full nr--  of  salvation. 

1746.  JOHNSON,  Rev.  Dr.  S.    A  system  of  morality,  &c.,  designed  to 
check  the  progret-8  of  enthusiasm. 

1747.  DICKINSON,   Rev.  J.     A  vindication  of  GocTt  sovereign  fret 
grace,  Sic.,  against  Mr.  Beach,  with  remarks  upon  Dr.  J.'e  letter 
of  Aristodes  to  Anthades. 

BEACH,  Rev.  J.     Reply  to  the  Vindication,  &c. 

HOBART,  Rev.  Noah,  (Prei.)  of  Fairfield,  Conn.     Presbyterian 

Ordination.     A    Sermon  preached  at  the   ordination  of  Rev. 

Noah  Wells,  of  Stamford. 

WETMORE,  Rev.  J.    A  Vindication  of  the  Professions  of  the 

Church  of  England,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Hohart. 

1748.  DICKINSON,  Rev.  J.    A  second  dedication  of  God's  sovereign 
free  grace,  against  the  same. 

HOBART,  Rev.  N.  A  serious  Address  to  the  members  of  the 
Episcopal  Separation  in  Neic  England,  in  reply  to  Mr.  VVettnore. 
WETMORE,  Rev.  J.  The  Englishman  directed,  a  general  reply 
to  the  subject  of  Mr.  Hobart's  Address. 

1749.  BEACH,  Rev.  J.     A  calm  and  dispassionate   Vindication,  of  the 
Professors  of  the  Church  of  England. 

WKTMORE,  Rev.  J.     Appendix,  &c.,  to  the  same. 
CANER,  Rev.  H.    A  Second  Appendix,  ifc.,  to  the  same. 

1751.  HOBART,  Rev.  N.    A  second  Address  to  the  members  of  tht 
Episcopal  Separation,  in  reply  to  the  above. 

1752.  McSrASRA.N,  Rev.  Dr.    America  dissected,  in  a  series  of  letters. 


25 


NOT  GENUINE  PROTESTANTISM.  225 

w  ' 

1750.   BEACH,  Rev.  J.    A   Continuation  of  the   Vindication  'of  the 

Professors  of  the  Church  of  England. 
1763.   CHAUNCIT,  Rev.  Charles,  D.  D.,  (Pros.)  Boston.     The  Validity 

of  Presbyterian  Ordination,  a  Dudleian  Lecture. 

1762.  JOHNSON,  Rev.  Dr.  8.    A  Sermon,  on  the  beauties  of  holiness 
in  the  worship  of  the  Church  of  England. 

1763.  APTHORP,  Rev.  East, (Epis.)  Cambridge,  Mass.    Considerations 
respecting  the  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  tfc.       ,    ' 
MAYHEW,  Rev.  Jonathan.  D.  D.    (Pros.)     Observations  on  the 
Charter  and  conduct  of  the  Society,  &c.,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Apthorp. 
JOHNSON,  Rev.  S.,  D.  D.    A  short   Vindication  of  the  Society 
for  Propagating  tht  Oospel. 

[Hobart,  Rev.  N.?]     Advantages  of  conforming,  tfc.,  written 

under  the  assumed  character  of  an  Episcopal  clergyman,   and 

personating  the  Rev.  J.  Beach,  but  attributed  to  Mr.  Hobart  and 

Rev.  Moses  Dickinson,  of  Norwalk. 

BEACH,  Rev.  J.    A  friendly  expostulation,  tfc.,  in  reply  to  "  The 

Advantages  of  Conforming,"  &c. 

BHOWN,  Rev.  Arthur,  Portsmouth,  N.  II.     (Epis.)    Remarks  on 

Mayhem's  Rc.Jlections  on  the  Church  of  England. 

WELLS,  Rev.  Noah,  (Pres.)  Stamford,  Conn.     Presbyterian 

Ordination  Defended  and  Proved. 

1761.  MAYHEW,  Rev.  J.    Defence  of  his  Considerations. 

17C5.   APTHORP,  Rev.  E.  Review  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  "  Considerations," 
Reply  to  his  "  Observations," 

LEAMING,  Rev.  Jeremiah,  D.  D.    (Epis.)    Defence  of  the  Epis- 
copal Government  of  the  Church. 
MAYHEW,  Rev.  J.   A  second  Defence  of  his  Considerations,  <£c. 

1766.  A  demonstration  of  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  holy  Conse- 
cration of  English  Bishops;  being  an  Extract  from  Mr.  Ward's 
second  Canto  of  his  England's  Reformation;  with  an  introduc- 
tion, notes,  and  appendix,  containing  the  solemn  funeral  song 
of  the  native  Irish :   written  by  some  dissenter,  under  the  as- 
sumed character  of  a  Churchman. 

1767.  WELLS,  Rev.  N.    A  Vindication  of  the  Validity  and  divine 
right  of  Presbyterian  Ordination,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Learning. 
CHANDLER,  Rev.  Thomas  Bradbury,  D.  D.,  of  Elizabethtown, 
N.  J.    An  Appeal  to  the  Public,  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  America. 

CHATJNCY,  Rev.  C.     Remarks,  on  tht  Bishop  of  Llandaff't 
Sermon,  &c. 

11 


PROTESTANTISM,  ETC.  22 G 

I'tQi.  CIIAUNCV  Rov.  C.  f'indtcaliim  of  a  Sermon  of  the  Lord  R'p  of 
Llandoff.  Truth  Triumphant,  &c.,  published  in  New-York. 

1738.  CilAUNCY,  Rev.  Dr.  C.  An  Antieer  to  Rev.  Dr.  Chandler's 
Appeal. 

1769.  CHANDLER,  Rev.  Dr.  T.  B.     Tke  Appeal  Defended. 

1770.  I.::AMINU,  Rev.  Dr.  J.     A   second   Defence   of  tke   Episcopal 
Government,  Ac. 

1771.  CIIAUNCV,  Rev.  Dr.  E.     Complete  eieic  of  Epiteopaey  from  tke 
Fathers. 

CHANDLER,  Rov.  Dr.  T.  B.  The  Appeal  further  Defended,  Sir. 
— — — —  A  critical  Commentary  on  Afip.  Seeker's  Letter  to 
L.  Walpole,  concerning  liishops  in  America.  Written  in  Eng- 
land, and  attributed  to  Archdeacon  Illarkburn. 

ITH.  CIIANDLKR,  Rev.  Dr.  T.  B.  An  Examination  of  a  critical 
Commentary,  &,c. 


Printed  by  JOHN  It  M'GowN,  No.  106,  Fulton -st.  N.  V 


•* -. 
V* 


ALMIGHTY  GOD,  WHO  SHOWEST  TO  THEM  THAT  ARE 
IN  ERROR  THE  LIGHT  OF  THY  TRUTH,  TO  TUB  INTENT 
THAT  THEY  MAY  RETURN  INTO  THE  WAY  OF  RIGHTE- 
OUSNESS ;  GRANT  UNTO  ALL  THOSE  WHO  ARE  AD- 
MITTED INTO  THE  FELLOWSHIP  OF  CHRIST'S  RELIGION, 
THAT  THEY  MAY  AVOID  THOSE  THINGS  THAT  ARE 
CONTRARY  TO  THEIR  PROFESSION,  AND  FOLLOW  ALL 
SUCH  THINGS  A3  ARE  AGREEABLE  TO  THE  S\ME, 

THROl'QH   OCR    LORD  JESUS  ClIRIST.       AilEN. 


A     000715718     3 


